(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.09.21 2016가단13371

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) 광주지방법원 2016.09.21 2016가단13371

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. 1) On June 19, 2015, A, a bicycle riding on a bicycle at around 17:30, 2015 and driving ahead of the front Jinnam-gun B along the same lane from the direction of the forestry cooperative leader to the central elementary school, while driving ahead of it, C cargo (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

(i) the D vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) driving in the opposite direction when passing beyond the median line to the opposite direction while passing beyond the median line.

2) As to the accident of this case, the accident of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the accident of this case”) occurred due to its shock.

(2) As to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

3) As to the instant accident, the Defendant paid KRW 100,415,490 to the bereaved family members of A as compensation for damages. 4) The Defendant filed a claim for deliberation and coordination of the amount of reimbursement with the Motor Vehicle Claim Deliberation Committee, and the said Committee decided on March 21, 2016 as the share ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 20:80, and according to the said decision, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,083,098 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was carried out in order to perform disease control work, and thus there is no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the money that the Plaintiff received according to the decision on the deliberation and resolution of the amount for reimbursement. (ii) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s collision of the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the opposite direction as a result of the collision with the central line for overtaking the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by A, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not negligent in performing any duty of care at the time of the instant accident. Rather, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 5, the instant vehicle

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.04.28 2019가단338546

-전주지방법원 2015.12.17 2014나9451

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단5231033

-창원지방법원 2017.09.22 2016가단111785

-인천지방법원 2020.12.08 2020나50532