(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.17 2014나67231

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 2015.07.17 2014나67231

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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”)

B. Around 16:20 on January 27, 2014, when C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of

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

On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 1,800,940 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant traffic accident.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the traffic accident in this case was caused by the total negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who caused a sudden change from the three-lane to the one-lane, and that the defendant's negligence does not exceed 70% of the defendant vehicle's negligence because it is an accident of general change of lanes.

The following circumstances, which are recognized as adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements or images in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, and 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, and 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 3,

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.29 2015나52885

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나18763

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.22 2019나2086

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.20 2016나50301

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나2484