(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.02 2015가단2740

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.02 2015가단2740

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,100,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from April 17, 2015 to November 2, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a person working as an engineer of the Plaintiff’s towing vehicle. 2) On September 30, 2013, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol around 5:50, driving a D vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with the Plaintiff’s knowledge of C while driving on the instant vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and caused an accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”) caused the instant vehicle to be destroyed by the instant vehicle by getting out of the bruth of the ebbbbbb in front of the northwest of the East Sea of the East Sea at the speed of about 60 kilometers from the Songan political center in the East Sea of the East Sea at a speed of about 60 kilometers per hour.

3) The Defendant’s accident even around June 28, 201 (hereinafter “previous accident”)

A) The Plaintiff agreed to reimburse the repair cost by causing the Plaintiff. [The grounds for recognition: (a) each entry of Gap-1, Gap-2, Gap-4, and Eul-3 (which include the number of pages), the video, and the purport of the entire pleadings, in the absence of any dispute.

B. According to the above facts, the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the defendant while driving without reducing speed from the other party under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case and the previous accident. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case since the accident of this case and the previous accident of this case are liable to the plaintiff.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that it is unfair for the Defendant, who is an employee, to transfer all responsibility for the accident that occurred while driving the Plaintiff-owned vehicle to the employee, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to limit the Defendant’s liability. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant driven the instant vehicle as its duties at the time of the instant accident, and rather, according to the statement in Eul

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.15 2019나62569

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.15 2014가단227496

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.15 2020나53424

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.06 2020나75950

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.20 2020나44154