logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.03 2014가합521335
손해배상(자)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the transportation business, who is the owner of B artr (hereinafter “the instant cargo vehicle”). The Plaintiff Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is the owner who requested the Plaintiff to transport the cargo, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty D, the owner of CY car (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”).

B. D, around 06:00 on December 23, 2013, driving the instant car and driving the instant car on the part of the E-Road (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”) at Silungdo from the inside of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the E-Road (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”) at Silungdo, and was stopped on the two-lanes of the same road, and the Plaintiff Company’s car parked on the instant truck and stopped on the two-lanes of the same road (hereinafter “instant cargo”), and accordingly, the instant cargo was damaged.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the plaintiffs' assertion, the freight of this case was stopped on the side of India in order to unload the freight of this case. However, since D continued the first lane of the road of this case, and caused the accident of this case by shocking the freight of this case, which was loaded onto the freight of this case due to negligence that caused the two lanes, the defendant, who is the insurer of the vehicle of this case, is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage of the freight of this case and the damage to the freight of this case caused by the accident of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion D had been operating one lane normally at the time of the instant accident, and had not invaded two lanes, and the instant accident is more considerably larger than the width of the lane.

arrow