logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.25 2017나18216
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. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purpose of the entire pleadings and arguments on the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 12 and Eul evidence 1:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to Aknife vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 7, 2016, around 12:00, at the intersection in front of the charge station in the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant intersection”), ① there was an accident where the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle left left at the right side along the leading line and ② the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the right side side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On October 14, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 278,250 with the insurance proceeds from the instant accident to E, the insured of the Plaintiff vehicle (i.e., medical expenses for the driver F of the Plaintiff vehicle) (i.e., KRW 104,250 according to the standard for payment under the terms and conditions of KRW 174,00,000, such as medical expenses

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s total negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver, who received the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a state of stop.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Determination

A. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the circumstances acknowledged in relation to the occurrence of the instant accident, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 12, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings in video.

1) On the road run by the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle immediately before the entry into the instant intersection, the first line was the right line to the left, the second line was the straight line, the third line was the straight line, and the third line. 2) The defendant vehicle was the left line from the first line of the said road, and the left line was the intersection in this case.

arrow