logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.10 2019가단5127972
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty C with respect to the freight vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty E with respect to the freight vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

At around 20:19 on November 9, 2018, Nonparty G: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and was parked on the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked in the direction of the offside intersection of the Asia-ri-ri-ri-ri-dong at the time of stay; and (b) the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were conflicting.

위 사로고 원고 차량 조수석에 탑승한 I이 원고 차량 전면부 유리창을 뚫고 도로 바닥으로 튕겨져 나가 사망하게 되었다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident site was a four-way road from a narrow speed of 60km/h or below, and the road that enters the instant accident from the solar intersection to the location of the instant accident was under a bend, and it was long from the straight line direction after the passage of the solar intersection.

At the time of this accident, the two-lanes of the driving direction of the plaintiff's vehicle was parked with one cargo vehicle in the part entering the workplace from the solar intersection, and if so, the defendant vehicle was parked.

At the time of the accident of this case, the vehicle was in the absence of the vehicle driving in both directions at the location of the accident of this case, and at the time, the road situation was very limited.

On January 29, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 340,000,00 as insurance money to the J, the mother of I, as the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties to the instant case, as a whole, of the statements or images of Gap’s 1 through 14, and Eul’s 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings, is concurrent with the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the state of the secondary line road at night.

arrow