logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.25 2014가단56582
보험금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2013: (a) around 23:10 on February 28, 2013, B driven the C urban bus owned by Seoul Bus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant bus”) and driven slowly in order to stop at the bus stop at the right edge of the bus stop, depending on three-lane roads in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, along the three-lane roads in front of Seoul.

B. The Plaintiff, which is located in India immediately before the bus stops, excessive portion of the front part of the Defendant bus, left the Plaintiff from India to three-lane roads, and the rear wheel of the Defendant bus was faced by the side of the Defendant bus, and the lower wheel of the Defendant bus exceeded the Plaintiff’s left side.

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

The plaintiff suffered injuries due to the accident of this case, such as the cutting down and the window of the left side, etc., and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the defendant bus.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2 evidence, Eul's 1 to 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Recognition of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the bus driver B should drive the bus at a somewhat distance from India when the bus driver B stops the vehicle as a bus stop, and the bus driver as well as the bus driver has the duty to stop safely by examining not only the bus stop but also by neglecting his duty to stop safely, and the accident of this case occurred on the wind that does not give a proper stop, so the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the 11,815,968 won paid by the plaintiff for the treatment of the injury suffered by the accident of this case and damages for its delay.

As to this, the defendant argues that the defendant should be exempted from liability since there was no negligence on the part of the defendant bus driver B with respect to the accident of this case and the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the plaintiff.

(b).

arrow