logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.11 2015나54461
구상금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Aid by intervention from among the total costs of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an insurer who concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for B ASEAN car owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

On June 23, 2014, the intervenor parked the above vehicle in the mechanical parking lot in Songpa-gu Seoul Building, and then opened the cargo partitions (so-called "intersection") and damaged the vehicle.

The plaintiff paid 1,402,400 won as insurance money due to the above automobile damage.

The State-Pacific Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nadeing”) is responsible for monitoring and managing the above parking facilities in order to maintain their normal operation condition. Damage to the above vehicle is caused by the defect of the above parking facilities in the above parking lot, or the above parking lot manager violated the duty of due care to ensure that the vehicle parked in the above parking lot is returned to the borrower in the same manner as the vehicle parked is parked by performing its duty of due care and management as a good manager. Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer who entered into a contract for the State-frequency and the maintenance and repair of parking facilities, is liable for compensation for damage therefrom.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, comprehensively taking into account whether a parking facility defect occurred in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10, and the overall purport of the pleadings at Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 11, the fact that the above automobile was parked in the above mechanical parking lot from Jun. 23, 2014 to Jun. 11: 24, 2014, and the fact that the above vehicle was parked in the above mechanical parking lot from Jun. 23, 2014, and that it was found that there were many places of damage to the above cargo parking lot after withdrawing from the above parking lot.

However, in full view of the contents of Nos. 5 and 8 and 9, as well as the contents of No. 7 with respect to the video of No. 7, the cargo partitions of the above vehicle can be divided into a Maccon, and the agreement may be reached even after the parking of the above vehicle.

arrow