(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.17 2016가단123981

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 2018.01.17 2016가단123981

구상금

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At around 01:00 on September 30, 1995, Defendant B driven a car owned by the Defendant A, and caused a person aboard a taxi by shocking the taxi which was driven on the opposite line by the Do officer’s private distance away from the south bank to the Do officer’s private distance.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The plaintiff paid mutual-aid money to the victim of the accident of this case and filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against the defendants (Yan District Court Decision 96Gahap906) against the defendants, which ordered the defendants to pay the same amount as that stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff on August 13, 1996. The judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. The Plaintiff brought an identical lawsuit against the Defendants (Seoul Central District Court 2006Gadan199569) for the interruption of prescription in 2006, and the judgment was rendered and finalized on October 18, 2006.

(hereinafter) The Defendants’ liability for indemnity against the Plaintiff based on the instant accident is d. (hereinafter “instant indemnity liability”).

The Defendants filed for bankruptcy exemption against the Plaintiff in 2006, and the Defendant A rendered a decision of immunity on August 16, 2007 (Seoul Central District Court 2007Da14071), and the decision of immunity (Seoul Central District Court 2006Da35703, Nov. 9, 2007) with respect to Defendant B, and each of the above decisions of immunity became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the performance of the claim for reimbursement of this case against the defendants for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and the defendants asserted that the claim for reimbursement of this case was extinguished by the decision to grant immunity.

B. The fact that a decision to grant immunity is made with respect to the claim for reimbursement of this case is as seen earlier.

The Plaintiff is liable for the reimbursement of this case.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.07.13 2016가단212404

-광주지방법원 2019.02.20 2018나3904

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.11 2016나52431

-서울동부지방법원 2018.03.28 2017가단130347

-서울서부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나33162