logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.27 2019나57291
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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On April 17, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of Fgymnasium in front of the Fgymnasium in Jeju, while proceeding in the direction of Fgymnasium in front of the F Gymnasium in front of the F Gymnasium, on the left side of the lane and going beyond the median line. The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle was believed to report it to turn to the left, and was in the direction of Fymnasium in front of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle in front of the Fymnasium in front of the Fymnasium in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the Fymnasium in front of it. The Plaintiff’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle

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

The committee for deliberation on car insurance disputes in relation to the accident in this case showed 80% of the negligence ratio between the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle: 20%. The plaintiff paid 1,063,480 won to the defendant, which is equivalent to the negligence ratio of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle among the repair cost of the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's alleged vehicle was driving ahead of the normal straight line with the front vehicle. Although the center line was in excess of the center prior to the right line, it is merely a rounding to the right line to smoothly enter the entrance of the Fgymnasium, and it is merely a rounding to the right line prior to the right line.

The defendant's vehicle is the plaintiff's vehicle prior to the latter.

arrow