logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.18 2018나66397
구상금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On April 18, 2017, around 13:13, 2017, the Plaintiff Company: (a) while driving a two-lane in the vicinity of the 539 academic mountain ginseng street, the Defendant Company, a prior vehicle driving a one-lane, changed the bicycle to the right side from the left side of the running direction to the two-lane, followed the said bicycle immediately after the Defendant Company changed the bicycle to the two-lane; and (b) due to the shock, E (hereinafter “victim”) who is a bicycle driver was killed.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 37,643,530 in total with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by the victim incurred from the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, namely, the instant accident occurred on a straight line, which is almost little sloped on the clean day, and the location of the instant accident is near the crosswalk, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver appears to have neglected his duty to safely drive by taking into account the left and the right. The Defendant’s driver, especially the vehicle driver, is in a situation where it is easy to secure one lane, and thus, it seems to have discovered the victim by neglecting his duty to take into account the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and duty of the Defendant’s vehicle are exercised.

arrow