logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.12 2018나79904
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s Vehicle”).

B. On June 20, 2018, around 21:12, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the left-hand turn from the front side of the Friju station located in Singu, E to the intersection of the water sking distance. On the other hand, there was an accident where the part of the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was opened to the said intersection in accordance with the first one-lane of the said side road, conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 6, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,727,80,00, excluding KRW 500,000,00 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurance proceeds.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 8, Eul’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence of 6-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that (i) the plaintiff is liable to pay the plaintiff's 4,863,90 won (=9,727,800 won x 50%) and damages for delay corresponding to the ratio of the defendant's fault out of the insurance proceeds paid to the plaintiff, since the defendant's vehicle neglected to perform the duty of pre-delivery and left-hand turn to the left-hand turn, the accident in this case occurred, and the defendant's vehicle's negligence on the occurrence of the accident in this case reaches 50%.

D. The defendant asserts that since the accident of this case occurred because the vehicle of this case was caused exclusively by the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request because it is an accident that occurred entirely from the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, on the left side of the moving direction while the defendant vehicle was on the left side of the moving direction.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned basic facts as to (i) the ratio of negligence and the purport of the entire pleadings.

arrow