logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.25 2018나50750
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with Dmaler 3.5 tons of vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 06:10 on December 26, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked along the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat on the side while driving along the two-lanes around the 138-15-lane 130 square meters from the IC seat on the road from the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, was shocked with the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 15, Eul evidence 1, 3, 6 through 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's vehicle stopped on the side while driving on the road, she stopped abnormal signs on the road, and since the defendant's vehicle, which is the subsequent vehicle, neglected the safety driving duty, the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle. The accident in this case occurred by the plaintiff's driver's stopping of the vehicle on the motorway that is prohibited from stopping under the Road Traffic Act, so the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle should be assessed to exceed 50%.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding on a two-lane road; (ii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the side beyond the two-lane road; and (iii) the two-lane and the side side were installed with a PEdrum and a safety sign between the two-lane and the side; and (iv) the driver of the vehicle under Article 64 subparag. 3 of the Road Traffic Act.

arrow