logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.31 2017나50852
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A4.5 tons of truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to Bniniki vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

나. 원고 차량은 2016. 7. 11. 02:00경 부천시 오정구 C에 있는 D 부근에서 편도 4차로의 도로 중 3차로를 인천 방향으로 진행하던 중 갓길에 주차 중인 피고 차량의 운전석 후측면부를 충격하고, 1차로로 튕겨져 나가면서 1차로를 진행하던 E 차량(이하 ‘피해 차량’이라 한다)의 조수석 측면부를 충격하였다

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

On October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,629,000 (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 150,000 from the return amount of the remainder) to F, the owner of the damaged vehicle, who was the owner of the damaged vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that neglected the duty of safe driving and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that violated the duty of prohibition of parking and stopping on the side of the expressway, the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that failed to take safety measures, and the structural and functional defects of the Defendant’s vehicle that neglected the duty of inspection in advance, and the fault ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle is 4:6. Therefore, the Defendant should pay KRW 2,17,400, the sum of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, which is 629,000, KRW 60%. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle stopped on the side of the road due to the abnormal phenomenon of the vehicle, and tried to install a subsequent triangulation, etc., but it did not exceed one minute after the Defendant’s stopping, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver was a driving on the roadside.

arrow