(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나7878

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 2015.10.29 2015나7878

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) B, around 4:10 on July 30, 2013, driven a C Soba taxi (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”) at the intersection located in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, 39-ro, 10-lane, and went into two lanes in the direction of the claim station in the direction of the new station, and tried to make a Uton in the direction of the previous station in the direction of the new station, and went into the same intersection again, and caused negligence on the part of neglecting the front bank and the right and right and right and right and right and right and right and the front part of the D Driving E E (hereinafter “the instant Oba”), which proceeded into the front part of the left and right and right and right and right-hand side of the Defendant taxi.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The instant accident caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as kneekne’s right-free knee’s kne, open knee’s kne, and damage to the next kne’s kne.

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement for Defendant taxi.

B. (1) According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business entity of defendant taxi.

(2) As to this, the Defendant was making a left turn at the intersection at the time of the accident. However, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not cause the instant accident while driving the Defendant taxi in the speed of one lane in order to drive the Defendant taxi at the same time, even though the Defendant was able to avoid a sufficient conflict by finding the Defendant taxi in advance. However, it appears that the Defendant was trying to make the Defendant taxi in the instant accident without changing the two lanes at the same time of the accident, in other words, the following circumstances such as Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and No. 1, No. 1 to No. 4, by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가단5170486

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2016가단5124033

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.10 2019나47430

-수원지방법원 2017.10.12 2017나51600

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.28 2014나18567