logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.09 2017가단233676
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 164,289,57 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 2, 2015 to January 9, 2019.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition 1) Drivers D, Inc., a Co., Ltd., are the Defendant-owned Vehicles E at around 07:00 on December 2, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant-Owned Vehicles”).

2) The Plaintiff, while driving on the Defendant’s vehicle and driving on the side of the chill distance inside the north-gu in Changwon-si, went by one lane from the direction of the road, left the road due to the negligence of driving the stroke, and caused an accident to stop with the driver’s seat wheeling on the north-gu in the direction of the proceeding. 2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered injury, such as the 1st century emission frame, the 12nd stroke, and the 12nd stroke.

3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with C about the defendant vehicle (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries and images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, as the mutual aid business operator who acquired the liability for damages related to the operation of the Defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety level mark in light of the occurrence of the instant accident and the consequences thereof. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the record of the G Hospital emergency room, which was sent immediately after the accident, stated that the Plaintiff was wearing a safety level mark at the time of the accident (Evidence No. 10), the Plaintiff was negligent in the course of the instant accident.

Since it is difficult to view that there are circumstances to limit the defendant's liability, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, each corresponding item of the annexed damages calculation sheet shall be the same, and in principle, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but shall be calculated on a monthly basis.

arrow