(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.11 2018나63851

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.11 2018나63851

구상금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The fact of recognition ① The Plaintiff is the insurer of the vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer of the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); ② the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding from the three-lane near Samsungnam Fire Station in Gangnam-gu, Seoul to the one-lane at around November 14, 2017. However, the fact that it was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle that immediately enters the vehicle outside the Nowon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant accident”); ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident; and the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 50,000,000 on November 30, 2017 after deducting the Plaintiff’s self-charged KRW 2,246,080 from the cost of repair of the vehicle or the payment of insurance proceeds of KRW 1,36,080 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not disputed between the parties concerned; or the purport of the entire oral argument can be acknowledged by adding the written evidence or video evidence in each case.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and summary of appeal are accidents caused by the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. The Plaintiff could not anticipate the Defendant’s vehicle’s rapid entry into one lane, and the occurrence of the accident could not be avoided.

Therefore, it is unreasonable that the Defendant paid KRW 2,246,080, which is the full amount of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost paid to the Plaintiff, as a reimbursement. It is unreasonable for the first instance court to recognize only the amount of comparative negligence by recognizing only 10% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’

3. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the instant accident occurred as to Gap evidence No. 7, even if the Defendant’s vehicle entered the same in the order of three-lanes, two-lanes, and one-lanes in the offboard parking lot, the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle immediately entered the offboard parking lot with nearly straight lines can be recognized.

In this context, the part of the damaged vehicles and ① the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, even if the Defendant’s vehicle entered the three-lanes to two-lanes.

Even if there is no proceeding on the two-lanes.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.18 2019나42992

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나53602

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나14425

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.10 2020나18070

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나62660