logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.10 2017가단319718
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 7, 2017 to September 10, 2019.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) On May 7, 2017, at around 02:30, C driven a D si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driven a road near the Fambin E located in Busan Jin-gu, from the Busan Police Station to E, the Plaintiff, who dried the said crosswalk on the right side of the right side of the walking signal signal color, was shocked with the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered an injury, such as acute trauma external blood transfusion, etc., due to the instant accident.

(2) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator for the defendant's vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

B. According to the occurrence of the liability for damages and the recognition of the limitation, the instant accident constituted a concurrent occurrence of the Plaintiff’s negligence by governance, even though the instant accident was the negligence of C, which failed to perform the duty of front-time care and pedestrian signal, and pedestrian signal was red.

C = 6: 4, it is reasonable to determine the liability ratio in light of the circumstances of the accident.

Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the accident of this case.

2. In principle, a period of time for calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 10 shall be discarded;

At the time of the accident, the amount of damages shall be calculated at the rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct interim interest.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, results of the physical examination commission to the president of G hospital [the appraiser H [the appraiser H (the sex surgery, December 8, 2017), appraiser I (the appraiser I (the marology, December 13, 2017), appraiser J (the marology, January 2, 2018)], and the result of the physical examination commission to the president of K hospital.

arrow