logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.14 2019나67922
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court is not presented to this court.

B. The reasoning of this court concerning this case is as follows, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. On the second page 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part to be removed or added, 11, “Defendant vehicles” added “ around November 13, 2015.”

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance, the "Plaintiff Vehicle" shall be cut into "Defendant Vehicle".

The following shall be added between the fourth 4th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 20th 20th 20th 20th 20th

Even if a driver of a motor vehicle neglects his/her duty to install traffic signals, etc. at or near the stop point, and the occurrence of a traffic accident near the stopping point, if the accident occurred regardless of the stopping of the motor vehicle or the traffic danger or obstacle caused thereby, it cannot be said that there is a causal link between the care for installation, such as a rectangular or flash signal, and the occurrence of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41412, Feb. 24, 2006). On the first instance judgment of the first instance court, the following is added to the following.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “The time of the instant primary accident is “1:32, Nov. 13, 2015,” and that the time of the instant primary accident is “1:34, Nov. 13, 2015,” and that the time of the instant primary accident is “1:34, Nov. 13, 2015,” and that the time of the instant primary accident is only two minutes.

However, it is difficult to clearly determine the timing of the occurrence of the first and third accidents in the instant case only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

Rather, it is true.

arrow