logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2019나33547
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty C Limited Company (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 4, 2018, around 13:10 on November 4, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle involved in the instant accident had an accident of collision with the fenced part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was left left at the front side of the FII, and the fenced part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly left at the above three-distance.

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

On November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 274,700, excluding KRW 500,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, and Eul evidence 1 to 4]

2. Determination

A. According to the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the defendant vehicle does not appear in the black image of the plaintiff vehicle at a time when the plaintiff vehicle enters the above third distance, and since the accident of this case occurred in the course of the defendant vehicle driving to the plaintiff vehicle at a relatively rapid speed around the time when the vehicle close close at the intersection of the plaintiff vehicle, in light of such black image, it is determined that the plaintiff vehicle entered the intersection after the vehicle first enters the above intersection.

In light of all the circumstances related to the occurrence of the instant accident, such as the conflict between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle in the instant accident is 30:0 the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. In such cases, the scope of the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity against the Defendant pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

arrow