logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.09 2016가단107323
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,631,280 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 27, 2015 to February 9, 2018.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 10:20 on October 27, 2015, B: (a) Category C Poter trucks (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

ii)A D Truck of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) driving a motor vehicle driving at the end of a four-lane while driving a motor vehicle on the middle-west Highway located in the Hanam-si along the three-lanes from the Seoul TG west to the Gu-ri side while driving a four-lane.

)의 운전석 문짝,앞 휀다, 앞 범퍼 측면 부분을 피고 차량 오른쪽 적재함 부분으로 충돌하였고, 원고로 하여금 경추의 염좌 및 긴장 등의 상해를 입게 하였다(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course of the motor vehicle, and the driver shall be obliged to inform the direction change in advance and change the course safely by keeping the traffic situation of the front and rear left, and according to the above facts recognized, it is reasonable to view that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle by the defendant who changed the vehicle line in an unreasonable manner without considering the front and rear left left well.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as the insurer of defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability, however, according to each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s failure to pay due attention to the move of the Defendant’s vehicle seeking the change of the lane was found, and as such, the damage was increased, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 90%.

2...

arrow