logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016나54242
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A owned by Hanhwa Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

나. 피고 차량은 2015. 5. 22. 14:50경 삼척시 동해대로 소재 한재터널 안의 편도 2차로 중 2차로(이하 ‘이 사건 도로’라 한다)를 따라 근덕면 방면에서 삼척 시내 방면으로 진행하던 중, 마침 전방에서 차량 고장으로 인하여 비상점멸등을 켠 채로 정차 중이던 원고 차량의 뒷부분을 피고 차량의 앞부분으로 추돌하였다

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2.27 million at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers in the case of virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who driven the vehicle by neglecting the duty of front-time, and therefore, the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle is obliged to pay 2.70,000 won of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as compensation.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who failed to take safety measures, such as the installation of a triangulation belt, while stopping due to the breakdown of the vehicle while neglecting the duty of the driver of the vehicle in front.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops on the instant road due to the breakdown of the vehicle is identical to the foregoing, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not install a sign of the vehicle broken down under all the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, such as a triangulation belt, at the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle after stopping.

arrow