(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016나57265

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 2017.04.27 2016나57265

부당이득금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the contents and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B urban bus (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant bus”) with C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant truck”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s car free shop (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s car”).

B. On July 27, 2014, around 15:00, at the time of the instant traffic accident, the traffic accident (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) which conflicts with the Defendant’s truck, which is driven by the central line on the opposite lane in the direction of safety while Defendant bus was driven by the central line in the direction of transmission in the direction of the central line. At the time of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff’s automobile was parked across the delivery and road located on the right side of Defendant bus, and then the Defendant bus conflicts with the Defendant’s automobile and re-confited with the Plaintiff’s automobile.

C. The instant traffic accident led to the death of F, which is the Defendant truck driver, and the injury of G, Defendant bus passengers H, and I, which are the Defendant bus driver.

The Defendant filed a petition with the Plaintiff for deliberation on the damage incurred in relation to the instant traffic accident, and determined that the committee for deliberation on the indemnity payment was the cause of the instant traffic accident and the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s car was 15%.

E. On July 21, 2015, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff pay KRW 16,851,870, which is 15% of the total insurance money that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff as a reimbursement. On July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,851,870 to the Defendant.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant traffic accident is the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.26 2018나32509

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.14 2017나88215

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017가단5131977

-대법원 1994. 10. 25. 선고 94다20655, 94다20662 판결

-대구지방법원 2015.03.18 2014나302346