logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.19 2018나28265
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.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each class 7 of the fourth-party judgment of the first instance shall be deleted, and the following shall be added at the bottom thereof:

【4) The Defendant appealed against the above appellate judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da212702, 212719 (Counterclaim), but the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on May 15, 2018.

[3] Considering all the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was the main cause for walking along the motorway, it is reasonable to view the F and the Defendant’s fault ratio, respectively, to 30% and 70%, when considering the fact that the Defendant contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the instant accident.

The first instance court's 6th to 11th court's 5th court's 5th court's 6th court's 10th court's 1th court's 1

Therefore, with respect to KRW 26,755,661, which is 70% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff due to the instant accident (i.e., KRW 45,365,230 x 70%) minus KRW 4,99,750, and KRW 24,219,288, which is cited in the first instance court, from May 20, 2017, which is the day following the date when the Plaintiff’s final disbursement was made, it is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation, until April 19, 2018, and KRW 2,536,623, which is additionally cited in the first instance court, from May 20, 2017, to the date when the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, it is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation of the Defendant to the extent of its obligation of payment, as stipulated in the Civil Act, respectively.

arrow