logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.13 2018나4764 (1)
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the court finds “the first impulse” of the last two pages of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the first impulse”. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who forced the central line, and caused the damages to the Defendant’s vehicle, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle who operated normally with the safety distance in compliance with the safety distance, was not negligent in the instant accident.

In addition, the death and injury of the victims were caused by the first shock, and the second shock did not affect the death and injury of the victims.

Therefore, the Defendant, as unjust enrichment, is obligated to return the insurance proceeds received to the Plaintiff KRW 224,868,310.

B. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driver is negligent in neglecting the safety distance and not maintaining the safety distance. The Plaintiff’s negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver and the Defendant’s negligence were concurrent. The Plaintiff’s negligence in relation to the instant accident is at least 30%.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned evidence and the video of Gap evidence No. 11, namely, ① the damaged vehicle immediately before the instant accident was in progress between the front-class truck and the plaintiff vehicle, which is the rear-class vehicle. According to the black image (Evidence No. 11), it is possible to verify the fact that the plaintiff vehicle secured a considerable distance between the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle (in the face, the distance between the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle is larger than the distance between the damaged vehicle and the damaged vehicle), ② the damaged vehicle stopped the vehicle before and after the first shock, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was damaged.

arrow