(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.04.13 2017나49690

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) 부산지방법원 2018.04.13 2017나49690

보험금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “instant excavation machine”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are the owner of the instant digging machines, and the Defendant is an insurance contract with the Plaintiff for the “business purpose (construction machinery and automobile insurance)” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) between March 17, 2016 to March 17, 2017 with respect to the instant digging machines (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

2) Of the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract, the parts relating to the instant case are as follows.

Part II Automobile Insurance Section 2 of the Liability for Damages and Article 8 (Non-Compensation) of the Personal Compensation Act, Chapter II of the Liability for Damages and Article 8 (Non-Compensation) of the Personal Compensation Act.

2. A loss resulting from property owned, used and managed by the insured’s employer when the insured is engaged in his/her business (hereinafter “instant exemption clause”);

B. On August 4, 2016, around 15:30, the Plaintiff suffered an accident where the instant accident occurred due to shocking the Dpokele vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “the instant damaged vehicle”) which was stopped while driving the instant excavation search vehicle at the Busan urban road construction site at the Busan urban road construction site of the Magdong-dong, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mag forest construction”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, the driver of the excavation aircraft of this case, was negligent in performing his duty of care while taking into account the traffic situation of the front, rear, and the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff, who is the driver of the excavation aircraft of this case, failed to perform his duty of care, thereby satisfying the damaged vehicle of this case. Thus, the defendant, the insurer of the excavation aircraft of this case, is the insurer

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.29 2016나53885

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.09 2016가단5234091

-광주지방법원목포지원 2016.02.17 2015가단52969

-대구지방법원김천지원 2015.06.25 2014가단15015

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.20 2015나57503