logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.01.25 2015가단23931
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 754,018,362 as well as 5% per annum from February 22, 2014 to January 25, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 2014, at around 23:33, Nonparty C driven a vehicle with alcohol content of 0.082% from 0.082% in blood, and driven the five-lane ahead of the “LG electronic visa shop transit point” in the throughng-si, an electric power plant at the time.

At the same time, the road signal, etc. had a yellow light signal at night, and the road signal, etc. had a crosswalk installed in front of the running direction of C, and therefore C neglected to check whether there is a person who has dried the crosswalk by reducing the speed of the vehicle and checking the right and the right and the right and the right of the road. However, C neglected to check whether there is a person who has dried the crosswalk.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

As a result, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by “understanding cerebral cerebrs and cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebrs and no open address in two parts,” and the Plaintiff was hospitalized in E Hospital, F Hospital, etc. from the instant accident to the present state of vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable.

C. On July 27, 2015, upon the request of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff commenced adult guardianship by the court 2015-Ma1007, and B, the former wife, was appointed as the Plaintiff’s adult guardian.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the DBS car driven by C at the time of the instant accident, and is liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

B. However, even if the plaintiff was to cut off the crosswalk in which the signal, etc. does not operate during the night, he was negligent in driving it under the influence of alcohol at the time, even if he had been well examined the left and right of the crosswalk.

arrow