(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나59180

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나59180

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to D motor vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to D motor vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 14, 2017, in the vicinity of the fugitive-dong Emergency Road in Ansan-si, there was an accident that the Defendant’s vehicle running one lane among the three lanes, changing the lanes into the two lanes, and the two lanes with the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two lanes.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,972,00,00, which deducts KRW 200,000 as the insurance money from the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s change of his own car car caused the instant accident. As such, the instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s unilateral negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,972,00,000 paid to the plaintiff as insurance money in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation of the insurer and delay damages therefor.

B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence revealed prior to the occurrence of one liability for damages, the instant accident occurred by the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver who neglected the duty to drive safely by closely examining the movement of the vehicle around, so as not to impede the passage of the vehicle running in the same direction when changing the vehicle, and by examining the movement of the vehicle in the same direction, it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle is 20:80.

Therefore, the defendant is the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나55263

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나39279

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.28 2016나41882

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나37167

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.02 2018나37269