logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2015나19161
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 a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to Asi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 19:52 on September 3, 2013, C: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving on the four-lane road in front of the member apartment commercial building located in the Pyeongtaek-gu Pyeongtaek-dong (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) and driving on the four-lane road in the vicinity of the private-private-purpose distance room, causing an accident of collision between the two-lanes of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) in order to find out the Defendant’s vehicle moving from the three-lane to the two-lane, and to avoid collision.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,493,720 of insurance money to the driver and passengers of the victimized vehicle for medical expenses, agreed fees, repair expenses, etc., and then filed a request for deliberation on the dispute over compensation reimbursement against the Defendant E (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). On May 19, 2014, on the ground that the deliberation committee was negligent in providing the cause of change to the Defendant’s rapid dust, the Plaintiff’s liability ratio is 70%, and the Defendant’s liability ratio is 30%, and the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff is 1,048,116 won (=3,493,720 x 0.3).” (hereinafter “decision on deliberation and resolution of this case”).

On June 10, 2014, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant received a notice of the deliberation and determination as above, and the said decision became final and conclusive on June 10, 2014 because they did not request or institute a retrial within 14

Section 1 (Purpose) This Agreement is reasonable to resolve disputes arising between insurers or mutual-aid operators on the existence and scope of their responsibilities for motor vehicle insurance or motor vehicle mutual-aid as provided for in the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, etc.

arrow