logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나58900
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

나. 원고차량 운전자는 2017. 12. 2. 05:50경 안산시 상록구 E 부근 편도 2차로 도로를 1차로를 따라 진행하던 중 전방에 있는 신호등이 없는 횡단보도를 좌측에서 우측으로 횡단하던 소외 F을 원고차량의 앞부분으로 충격하였고, 그로 인해 소외 F이 전방 1시 방향으로 튕겨나가면서 2차로에 주차되어 있던 피고차량의 뒷부분에 부딪히는 사고가 발생하였다

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

By November 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 58,234,880 as insurance money in terms of damages and treatment expenses, and thereafter, paid KRW 94,440,510 in addition to the total amount of KRW 152,675,390 under the same title until June 10, 2019 (=amount of KRW 92,280,000 for damages (=amount of KRW 60,395,390 for medical expenses).

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who illegally parked in the area where the stopping of the vehicle is prohibited, along with the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver, was caused by the concurrent act of the Defendant’s driver. As such, since the damage was significantly increased due to the illegal parking of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount equivalent to 50% of the fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver (=52,675,390%) and the delay damages therefrom, out of the insurance money paid to the Plaintiff.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the aforementioned basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments, are as follows. ① The instant accident is serious negligence that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving a vehicle at the new wall time, violated the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalk.

arrow