logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2020.12.10 2020가합9005
손해배상(자)
Text

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 16, 2016, the Defendant driven a FF Truck (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) and turn to the left from both sides of the terterIC located in the corner-dong in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si to the left left, in accordance with the new subparagraph of the left-hand turn to the left-hand turn. On the other hand, the Defendant continued approximately 100 meters depending on three-lanes among four-lanes, and changed the course to the G cafeteria in order to turn to the right-hand way at the right-hand direction.

B. At the time of the left turn of the Defendant’s vehicle, the network A (hereinafter “the network”) driven a two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter “the network”) and proceeded from the water source to the Incheon bank on the water surface, and the above three-distance was passed from the water surface. Despite the stop signal at the time, the vehicle was left as it was.

C. As above, at the time the Defendant driving the Defendant’s vehicle and changing the course into a four-lane, the Defendant was proceeding along four lanes on the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle, namely, the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the course and the accident that the Defendant faced with the Defendant’s Ortoba (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”); and the Deceased suffered injury, such as external cerebrovassis, which requires approximately twelve weeks medical treatment due to the instant traffic accident. The virtual situation where the instant traffic accident occurred is as follows.

G

D. Meanwhile, on June 29, 2020, the Deceased died during the instant lawsuit, and accordingly, the Plaintiff C and D, the wife of the Deceased, jointly inherited the deceased’s property and taken over the instant legal proceedings.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 6, 7 and Eul evidence 4 (including the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each of the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims

A. The main point of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant has a duty of care to observe the traffic accident in this case.

arrow