(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017나47252

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017나47252

구상금

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. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 4, and 5; Gap evidence Nos. 3; and Gap evidence Nos. 3.

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B-Scar car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to C-si (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 11:55 on July 31, 2016, the Plaintiff’s driver driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the straight signal, and the driver was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that passed the said intersection on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the vehicle in front of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict over the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,580,000 to A as insurance proceeds to compensate for damage caused by the instant accident, and returned KRW 280,000 on August 18, 2016 to remainder.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the party’s assertion (i) the instant accident was caused by the former fault of the Defendant’s driver who attempted to turn on a non-protective line in violation of the method of passage through the intersection and the duty of safe driving. The Plaintiff’s driver, who was directly engaged in the traffic signal in the opposite direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, could not have predicted or avoided the abnormal progress of the Defendant’s vehicle, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s driver did not have any negligence in relation to the instant accident.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the mutual aid business for the defendant vehicle, is the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.02 2016가단60226

-전주지방법원 2016.04.07 2014나7462

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2018나58754

-전주지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단33378

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.27 2017나64271