logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2017.09.27 2016가단10354
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) paid KRW 2,928,880 to the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from September 6, 2012 to September 27, 2017.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The Plaintiff, a company running the automobile insurance business, is a company that is engaged in B and CMW X3 XDE 20D vehicles (hereinafter “small vehicles”) around December 31, 201.

(2) On September 6, 2012, the Defendant concluded an automobile insurance contract with the term of insurance as of December 31, 2012. (2) On September 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) driving of D Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); (b) changing the lane into one lane for the instant vehicle while driving along the two-lanes around EF Industries History in the southwon city; and (c) accordingly, the front part of the instant vehicle driving on the first lane of the instant vehicle was shocking the front part of the driver’s seat of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

3) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff sustained an injury on the part of the left-hand left-hand side, such as spawn, etc. (based on recognition). [This ground] Facts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, and evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (which include a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

No. 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of recognition as the ground for the liability for damages, the Defendant sustained the injury due to the operation of the non-party vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable for compensating the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the non-party vehicle, unless

C. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence revealed earlier, the instant accident occurred while the Defendant attempted to make a two-lane, and even if B neglected to perform the duty of a two-lane, the Defendant’s responsibility for the occurrence of the accident seems to be greater, and the Plaintiff’s liability for damages is limited to 30% of the total amount of damages, in addition to the ideology of the damage compensation system and the principle of equity, which share fair apportionment of damages.

arrow