logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나15303 (1)
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for C25 tons of cargo vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for D cargo vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 11:00 on January 12, 2018, Defendant vehicles entered the Yero-dong Yero-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, leading to two-lanes of the tunnels inside the tunnel (hereinafter “instant tunnel”), and saw Plaintiff vehicles in front of the direction of the Defendant vehicle’s proceeding.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On July 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,200,000, which deducted the Plaintiff’s self-paid cost of KRW 500,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 5, Eul evidence 3 and 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the instant accident is an accident that occurred due to the Plaintiff’s discovery of the Plaintiff’s previous vehicle while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in an excessive speed on the ice side while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the ice side at the latest, without stopping it.

Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle, the KRW 5,200,000, and the delay damages therefor.

B. Although the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion was driving normally at a limited speed at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on the instant tunnel, which is a stop-prohibited section, and failed to take safety measures, such as not only turn on emergency lights, and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the instant accident.

arrow