logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.31 2016나13443
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff driven a B-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) around 12:15 on October 25, 2013, resulting in the injury of the Plaintiff, i.e., e., c (hereinafter “Defendant”) following the front two-lanes of the set-off Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu’s Underground Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Motor Vehicle”).

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). (b)

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the defendant vehicle.

C. The instant accident is attributable to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the head of an unknown head, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety belt, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 90% of the total damages in consideration of such circumstances.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of damages.

A. This part of the judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of Chapters 3, 12, and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that there was a proximate causal relation with the instant accident, since there was no lee kne-free injury until the instant accident occurred. ② The Plaintiff asserts that there was a proximate causal relation with the instant accident inasmuch as there was no lele-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-free kne-out, which was received from the instant accident on November 20, 2013.

However, this shall not apply.

arrow