logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나58712
구상금
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 first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 26, 2017, around 12:58, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven one lane near E in order to overtake the Defendant’s vehicle driven earlier, the Defendant’s driver’s seat part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was left left at the intersection, was shocked by the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 7,939,580, after deducting KRW 500,000 from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred when the left-hand turn of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was followed by the Plaintiff’s previous vehicle, and the negligence between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver was concurrent, and the negligence ratio is about 6:4.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay 3,175,832 won (=7,939,580 won x 40%) and damages for delay paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the situation of the accident of this case and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence as seen earlier, the accident of this case appears to conflict with the defendant vehicle which the plaintiff, who tried to overtake the defendant vehicle prior to the collision with the median line, would normally turn left. It is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.

arrow