logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015나53587
구상금
Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

3. The first instance.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing all counterclaims against the plaintiff, the defendant, the co-defendant A of the first instance trial, and the defendant and the plaintiff A of the first instance trial, and only the defendant appealeds against this judgment, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the defendant's counterclaims claim.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion 1) cannot be deemed to have caused the accident of this case by the former negligence of F, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle E, without taking any measures despite the duty to provide relief and take emergency measures against F, resulting in the death of F. As such, the plaintiff, the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle, was obligated to pay funeral expenses of F, the heir of F, and the co-defendant A of the first instance court, for damages caused by the death of F, KRW 3,34,40, KRW 299,640, KRW 15,265,524, KRW 36,80,000, KRW 55,709,564, and KRW 55,700,000, KRW 36,000, KRW 564, and KRW 55,700,000, KRW 564, and KRW 2,000, the plaintiff's allegation of this case occurred by the previous negligence of F, and the plaintiff's counterclaim was filed three years after the date of this case.

B. According to the purport of the evidence No. 9-4, No. 1, No. 2, and the entire arguments and arguments, the witness, including J, etc., who had been in the vicinity of the accident site in the course of investigating the accident of this case, stated that “it was impossible to witness the scene of the accident, but it was immediately possible to hear the sound of the accident and confirm the location of the accident, and the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped and was f was used in the future.” The first report is filed at around 21:23, approximately one minute following the occurrence of the accident of this case.

arrow