(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.02 2019나22813

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 2019.10.02 2019나22813

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 3, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) 17:40 on the west-gu, Songjin-gu, Songjin-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the direction of the Seoul Metropolitan City was fluored to the front end of the vehicle (hereinafter “the primary accident”); (b) fluor vehicle that was driven in front of the vehicle at the front end of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (c) fluor vehicle at the front end of the vehicle; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle following the wind-stom vehicle did not stop; (c) fluoron the front end of the wind-on vehicle; and (d) fluoroned the Plaintiff’s vehicle by pushing the wind-on vehicle and the fluor vehicle with the wind-on vehicle, and then fluord the Plaintiff’s vehicle after the shocking the vehicle after the shock (hereinafter “2nd accident”).

On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,004,00 as the repair cost for the front portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 3,509,90 as the back portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was already paid by the Defendant.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for reimbursement under this Court No. 2018Gaso2796987 as to personal damage caused by the second accident, and filed a claim by setting the ratio of the fault of the Defendant vehicle as 50%. On January 16, 2019, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 12, 2019.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the damage of the plaintiff's vehicle occurred due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle's failure to discover the preceding vehicle parked due to the failure of the defendant's vehicle at the front time, and due to the negligence that continued without speeding the speed, and thus, the damage of the plaintiff's vehicle was expanded.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.11.29 2019나53844

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나42052

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나57111

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.30 2016나52578

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.29 2016나17582