logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나30671
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner and driver of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 27, 2018, around 14:35, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in operation in a parking lot within the F Rest located in the Guro-si E, and there was an accident that conflicts between the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle that was going back to the back from the parking zone on the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By December 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 4,606,670 as insurance money to the Plaintiff’s driver’s medical expenses incurred from the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged driver did not have the duty of care to predict and drive the Defendant’s vehicle that was rapidly behind, and the instant accident was wholly caused by the Defendant’s fault.

B. The defendant did not fault with regard to the accident of this case.

C. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① the instant accident is an accident involving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the parking area, which was parked in the passage of the parking lot. ② According to Article 18(3) of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant breached such duty of care, i.e., the Defendant breached the duty of care, i., that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver is expected to bring the parked vehicle to the passage of the parking lot at any time, taking into account the following circumstances.

arrow