logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.30 2017나51558
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) on B-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s taxi”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff taxi was treated as full-time losses due to a traffic accident that occurred as follows (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff paid 4,090,000 won to the Intervenor assisting the Plaintiff as a compensation for damages caused by Plaintiff’s transfer of taxi, and returned KRW 300,000 out of the proceeds from the sale of the remainder.

On April 14, 2016: The accident site around April 14, 2016: A road accident situation near the access road to the same zone as the Olympic Winter Winter Winter Games in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government: The five-lane of the above road is the exclusive road for access to the same zone and is separated from the safety zone near the above entry road.

The driver of the defendant vehicle is driving the defendant vehicle in the above temporary border along the three-lanes of the above road.

위 진입로 바로 앞에서 위 진입로에 진입하기 위하여 4차로로 차선변경을 하고 연이어 위 안전지대를 가로질러 5차로로 차선을 변경하는 과정에서 위 도로의 5차로를 따라 위 진입로에 진입하던 보조참가인 운전의 원고 택시 운전석쪽 측면부를 피고 차량 조수석 앞범퍼 부분으로 충격하였고, 이로 인하여 원고 택시가 우측으로 튕기면서 안전벽에 충돌하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. In light of the occurrence of liability for damages, the above recognition ratio, and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant vehicle driver at the time of the instant accident is likely to obstruct the normal passage of the Plaintiff vehicle, which is proceeding five lanes.

arrow