logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가합283
손해배상(자)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) On July 12, 2014, D driving of the E-motor vehicle owned by the IMS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NS”) (hereinafter “instant cargo vehicle”) and sent to the left-hand turn at the entrance road of the factory guard room in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, an A-A-A-car Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A-A-motor vehicle”) for the left-hand turn on the front side of the network F (hereinafter “the network”) that entered from the factory into the front side of the said cargo vehicle, while going to the front side of the said cargo, he got the parts of the deceased’s head to go to the front right side of the said cargo vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the deceased died from brain damage due to the shock.

(2) As the co-inheritors of the deceased, there are Plaintiffs A and C, who are their spouse A and lineal descendants, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity which entered into a mutual aid agreement with the IMS on the instant cargo vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6 evidence, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damage caused by the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of the freight of this case.

C. The Defendant asserts that D had paid attention to the operation of the instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident, on the other hand, he/she is exempted from liability on the ground that D had been negligent in the occurrence of the accident.

The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant accident occurred due to the prior negligence of the Deceased, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 4, 1, 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, D is the instant accident.

arrow