logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.03 2019나34984 (1)
구상금
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

B. On November 21, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the entrance to enter the front underground parking lot (hereinafter “instant underground parking lot”). The Defendant’s vehicle, which was located in the instant underground parking lot, shocked the front left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front part of the left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

Based on the above insurance contract, on December 17, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,480,000, excluding KRW 200,000,000, for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) Although the Plaintiff’s driver discovered the Defendant’s vehicle from the instant underground parking lot and stopped at the right edge of the instant underground parking lot, the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver, since the Defendant’s driver was negligent in performing the duty of front-down and safe driving, and thus, the instant accident occurred. 2) The Defendant’s negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s driver, who did not properly examine the movement of other vehicles in the process of entering the instant underground parking lot.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence No. 7 and evidence Nos. 1 and No. 1 of the Plaintiff and Defendant vehicle’s 1’s negligence ratio, namely, the point where the instant accident occurred, is the vehicle moving into the instant underground parking lot, which is in the form of bending on the left side from the direction from the entrance to the entrance of the instant underground parking lot.

arrow