logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.31 2013가단207475
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff as a party is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with A and its holding B franchises for automobiles (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) with respect to the insured from June 19, 2012 to June 19, 2013. The Defendant is a road manager at the location where the instant accident occurred.

B. On December 19, 2012, A, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.265% at the 01:45%, a vehicle A, while changing a two-lane to a one-lane in the boundary of the second complex in the intersection of the intersection, was running along the two-lanes in the middle of the intersection of the intersection, and the one-lanes in front of the right side of the Aburged vehicle, which was proceeding along the one-lane, was shocked by the instant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the first accident”), but continued along the one-lane in the middle of the sports site without stopping, but the two-lanes along the central line along the two-lanes along the opposite one-lane.

The accident of this case is called ‘the accident of this case'.

(C) As a result, D died during emergency treatment. By April 26, 2013, the Plaintiff, as an insurer, paid KRW 198,452,340 to F, etc., the heir of D, in accordance with the said insurance contract, with D’s treatment costs and agreed amount. [Grounds for recognition] The absence of dispute, A1 through 7 (each entry in the serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the event of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the eroding road is not the straight line but the eroding structure, which is not the straight line, and thus, the eroding road is not the straight line. Therefore, even though the straighter vehicle passed through the eroding road, the Defendant did not install the erokeer inside the intersection, and did not install the erogate protection fence at the vicinity of the center line at which the intersection ends, and the lighting facilities, the erosp prevention packaging, and the traffic safety signs.

arrow