(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.23 2017가단5067151

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.23 2017가단5067151

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) on October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff KRW 12,429,304 for each of the said KRW 12,429,304 and each of the said KRW to Plaintiff A.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A is the network D (hereinafter “the network”).

The wife, Plaintiff B, and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the F Truck of Nonparty E driving (hereinafter “Defendant”)

2) On October 31, 2016, the deceased was driving a G car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff car”) at around 23:20 on October 31, 2016, and entered a two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan, into the direction of the driver’s lane (an additional road that can stop only in an emergency, such as a traffic accident) due to drinking driving while driving a two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two-lane of the two.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Deceased died due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute Gap 1 through 5 (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the fact that the liability for damages was established and the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant’s vehicle was illegally parked in a place where parking is not permitted, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle concealed the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked due to drinking, etc., and the impact of which part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat left the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked in the front part of the vehicle. If the Defendant’s vehicle was not parked, the part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat appears to have been much smaller than that of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle contributed to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident and the expansion of the damage therefrom by illegally parking at the location of the instant traffic accident.

Therefore, the defendant, who is a mutual aid business for the defendant's vehicle, is liable for damages to the deceased and their inheritors, so the defendant's defense of immunity is without merit.

C. The Deceased whose responsibility is limited is Jeonju.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2017.02.09 2016가단206736

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.13 2019나59068

-의정부지방법원 2017.12.15 2017가단106930

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.13 2013가단46599

-전주지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가단35408