logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.02 2017나47993
구상금
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

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a guarantee business operator entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation prescribed in Article 30 (1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Motor Vehicle Liability Act”) pursuant to Article 45 (1) of the same Act, and the Defendant is the owner of the B-motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as

On July 10, 2016, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle, which was not covered by liability insurance, and went into the intersection of the cultural village located in the 202 East-ro, west-ro (hereinafter “instant intersection”) along the intersection of the cultural village located in the 202 East-si (hereinafter “instant intersection”). On July 10, 2016, the Defendant conflicts with C Driving D(hereinafter “Plaintiff”) that proceeded with the two-lane of the two-lane road in the north-do boundary of the north-do market.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”. The instant accident destroyed the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the right side, and C suffered injury, such as light-feas, knee knee knee knee kne, etc., requiring treatment for approximately two weeks.

The Plaintiff received a claim for the payment of compensation for damage on the ground that the Defendant is an uninsurance vehicle, and paid KRW 411,980,000 for medical expenses to C until October 26, 2016, as an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation by the Government in accordance with the Automobile Loss Compensation Act.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the judgment of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, namely, the intersection was an intersection without signal, etc., while the roads where the defendant's vehicle was in progress at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue were the roads where the plaintiff's vehicle was in progress, while the roads where the plaintiff's vehicle was in progress at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, the perpetrator is specified as C, and the contents of the accident are also specified as the front part of the vehicle by the plaintiff.

arrow