logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.26 2011가단355042
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 201,006,251 as well as 5% per annum from June 5, 2010 to September 26, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) B, around 04:08 on June 5, 2010, while driving a CA car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving three-lanes on the three-lane road in front of the Jincheon-si University located in the front line of Macheon-si, Jincheon-si, the Plaintiff was found to have immediately crossed the front bank road to the right side from the left side of the road without due diligence, but he was found to have immediately driven the front part of the Defendant vehicle, and had the Plaintiff go beyond the front part of the Defendant vehicle without being able to avoid her head and face, and suffered injury, such as a diver flafing on the right side of the road, an open lafing lafing lafing laf.

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 2 and video (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred solely by the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence, and thus, the Defendant is not liable for damages. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his duty of care on the front of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., should be considered as the cause of the instant accident, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s unauthorized crossing road at the time of the instant accident is adjacent to a road within 6.6 meters from the crosswalk, and the Plaintiff was a vehicle driving signal at the time; (b) however, the instant road is a straight line where it is easy to secure the view of the front of the road; and (c) the road was installed around

(b).

arrow