logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단213538
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,117,00 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 1, 2016 to April 15, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the new Won Industrial Co., Ltd. and its owned A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the construction machinery for the typ type type B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 29, 2015, at around 08:25, C was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the vicinity of the SeosanIC located in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes. However, the Plaintiff’s driver, who was driving in the two-lanes, returned handphones to the left side in the process and entered the first lane, and the collision between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle was occurred.

(See Attached Forms 2 and 3, hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”).

On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 52,117,000 won in total to the maintenance company, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the instant traffic accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver, and in particular, the instant traffic accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the instant traffic accident circumstance recognized in Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 6, and 9; (b) the handphone, which the driver of the Defendant vehicle affected, returned hand-on to the left-hand side in the process; and (c) the Defendant vehicle, who is a locker at the right-hand lane, is not easily anticipated to enter one lane; and (d) there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff vehicle exceeded the speed limit at the time of the accident. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant traffic accident occurred due

B. Therefore, the Defendant served on the Plaintiff a copy of the instant complaint from January 1, 2016, which was served on the Plaintiff from January 1, 2016, to April 15, 2016.

arrow