logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2019.02.27 2017나58321
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

The reasons why the court of this case, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, are the same as the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it shall be quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be dismissed or added, which “this court” in the first instance court, which reduces 6th 17-18th 6th 17th 18th , shall be deemed “the first instance court”, and “the result of inspection” shall be added “the result of inspection”

The following contents shall be added to the end of the seventh part of the first instance judgment:

It may be recognized that the speed of the tank lorri vehicle in this case, which had passed the point of the instant accident, was 90km/h, even if it was based on the result of the appraisal by the appraiser K of this Court.

[Plaintiff appears to have illegally removed the speed limitation system of Defendant B’s tank of this case. The Plaintiff asserted that the speed limitation system of the tank of this case was 105 km/h. However, according to the appraiser’s appraisal result, it can be recognized that the degree of the tank glass which passed the accident point of this case was 90 km/h., and even though the appraisal result of the appraiser’s appraiser’s appraisal stated that part of the number (average 93.78 km/h/h 90 m/h 90 m.) exceeds 90 km/h, it was difficult to deem that the above level or other materials submitted by the Plaintiff were insufficient to view that Defendant B illegally removed the speed limitation system of the tank of this case, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not correct) to be a collision between Plaintiff B and the tank of this case, and the tank of this case.”

arrow