(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.01.15 2019가단162393

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) 서울동부지방법원 2021.01.15 2019가단162393

손해배상(자)

Text

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 107,275,84 won and its related 5% per annum from June 22, 2018 to January 15, 2021, and from the next day.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) On June 22, 2018, C driven a motor vehicle with D (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-motor vehicle”) D, D (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-motor vehicle”) around 03:20, and met with the front part of the Defendant-motor vehicle, the Plaintiff, who was crossinged the front part of the Defendant-motor vehicle, was faced with the extension of the horizontal distance from the front part of the Sugdong-gu E (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) due to the instant accident, at the speed exceeding 60km per hour when the speed limit of the straight line of the vehicle signal exceeds 7 km at the right speed limit of 60km in the straight line of the vehicle signal apparatus according to the three-lane 7 lanes.

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 14, Gap evidence No. 14, and the court's fact-finding with the fire department south of the Republic of Korea, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition and scope of liability, the Plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(c)

1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s fault ratio of the Plaintiff was 80% due to the Plaintiff’s fault while crossing the instant accident at night. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s fault ratio should be considered as 80%. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s fault ratio was merely 50% higher than that of the Plaintiff’s fault ratio, since crossing the road when the pedestrian signal of the pedestrian signal apparatus is on-and-off and is changed to

2) The following facts can be acknowledged according to the results of inquiries into the video of Gap 14 and the Won Won Won-won.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2021.01.15 2019가단162393

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2015가단5281816

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.28 2018가단5220058

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.17 2017가단5173636

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.25 2015가단5343745