logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013. 7. 26. 선고 2013나21245 판결
[가족운전자한정특약부존재확인][미간행]
Plaintiff and appellant

Plaintiff (Law Firm citizen, Attorneys Jeon Young-sik et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

Plaintiff-Supplementary Intervenor (Law Firm Han River, Attorney Kang Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant, Appellant

The next Dasch Rexroth Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorney Kim Nam-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 28, 2013

The first instance judgment

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da136231 Decided March 25, 2013

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On May 1, 2012, at around 18:50, Nonparty 2 was found to exist in relation to the accident that Nonparty 3 and the Defendant received from Nonparty 4 while driving (vehicle number omitted) XD car owned by the Plaintiff on the two-half side of the International Passenger Terminal, and on December 12, 2011, the Defendant’s liability for the payment of insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff based on an individual automobile comprehensive insurance contract concluded on December 12, 2011 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the part of Nonparty 3, 4, and his/her family members (excluding the part falling under the liability insurance, which is the liability insurance). (The Plaintiff amended the purport of the claim as above in the trial).

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) Nonparty 1 purchased the instant vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff around 2009, and (b) concluded the Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and the Integrated Automobile Insurance Contract; (c) at the time, there was a special agreement on limited driving for family drivers; and (d) in addition to Nonparty 2, it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since Nonparty 1 purchased Nonparty 2 in the name of the Plaintiff.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Hong (Presiding Judge)

arrow