(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나2959 | 리걸엔진

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) 울산지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나2959

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on B rocketing Private Taxi owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance agreement with C with the Defendant on DM5 automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 03:30 on May 31, 2014, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the front road of the Southern-gu Ehigh School in Ulsan-gu, U.S. along the two-lanes of the four-lane road in the direction of the industrial tower from the right-side side of the industrial tower to the right-side side of the four-lane road. On the opposite direction, C discovered pedestrians crossing without permission from the center line to the right-side side, and tried to change the two-lanes.

C. At the time, the Plaintiff vehicle, which had been driving the three-lanes on the said three-lane road, caused an accident that conflicts with the F vehicle, which was driven along the four-lanes of the said road (hereinafter “victim”) on the wind to the right by plucking or digging the hand to avoid a collision with the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff, a mutual aid project operator of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 1,197,000 to the Intervenor’s Intervenor as repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserted that the instant accident occurred in the course of avoiding the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle that attempted to change the lane, and that the Defendant vehicle’s driver was grossly negligent.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that there was no conflict between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle, and rather, the plaintiff's assistant participant, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, was involved in the accident of this case while the plaintiff's assistant participant, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, was involved in the accident of

3. Determination

A. Therefore, this is applicable.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.16 2015나59776

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.23 2014가단127743

-서울남부지방법원 2017.12.07 2017나54256

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.07 2017나57723

-대구지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단108615