logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나16576
구상금
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A as to B vehicles owned by it (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a local government that bears the responsibility for the maintenance and management of the roads adjacent to the Sing-si, Seog-si (hereinafter “instant roads”).

B. On July 29, 2016, around 11:30, around July 29, 2016, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and passed through the part of the road that was flooded by concentrated rain while driving along the instant road, and a high person’s water flows into the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the engine was suspended (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,460,000 to A with the insurance proceeds from a vehicle’s total loss.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff, as a manager of the instant road, neglected to install and manage drainage facilities to prevent flooding, and neglected to take measures to prevent accidents, such as installing bypassing signboards or traffic control, if roads were flooded.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for compensating for damages sustained by the accident in the instant case, and the defendant is liable for paying the insurance proceeds to the plaintiff who acquired the subrogation of the above damage claim by paying the insurance proceeds to A, with the amount of KRW 25,460,000 for indemnity

B. The road of this case was flooded only due to unexpected heavy rain, but cannot be viewed as a result of the defendant's defects in road management, and the defendant fulfilled his duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms.

Plaintiff

The driver of the vehicle is aware that the road in this case was flooded, and it is difficult to proceed with it.

arrow