logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2020.08.12 2016가단68895
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s damages liability against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) based on an accident listed in the attached Table 5 list.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the FTF vehicle owned by E (hereinafter “instant automobile”).

Defendant B and Defendant C are married with each other, and Defendant D are married with each other, and Defendant C is married with each other.

B. At around 13:35 on October 7, 2006, E: (a) driven the instant vehicle and driven the front road of the member G apartment in Ansan-si, Ansan-si; (b) caused an accident attributable to the negligence of failing to properly manipulate the steering gear, brake system, etc.; and (c) caused an accident of shocking the telegraph.

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

The Defendants, at the time of the instant accident, were those who were accompanied by the instant vehicle, and due to the instant accident, Defendant B suffered injury, such as the left-hand pelke, the left-hand pelke, the left-hand pelke, the injury of Defendant C, such as the abandonment of the upper-hand pelle and the pelke, and the injury of Defendant D, i.e., e., the non-explosion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, 12, Eul evidence No. 160 and 161, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the instant insurance contract, is liable for the damages suffered by the Defendants due to the instant accident.

Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, at the time of the instant accident, all the Defendants and H, I (A) other than drivers E were on board the instant automobile. However, it is recognized that: E was on the driving seat; Defendant C was on the steering seat; Defendant C was on the back seat of the steering seat; Defendant D (6 years old at that time); H (7 years old at that time) on the back seat; and Defendant B was on the back seat of the back seat of the steering seat; and Defendant B was on board the Defendant I (2 years old at that time); at the time of the instant accident, Defendant B and Defendant D did not wear safety belts.

As above, Defendant D used safety belts.

arrow