(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나56232

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나56232

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the Plaintiff’s D Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), Defendant B Mutual Aid Association (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) is the insurer who entered into the respective automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant 1”), and the Defendant C Federation (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) is the insurer who entered into the respective automobile insurance contract with respect to the F Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant 2”).

B. On August 3, 2018, G vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “victims”) stopped after the rapid stop of emergency lights, etc. at the entrance of the upper 2 tunnel, while proceeding one lane of the central highway near the upper east of Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, who followed the damaged vehicle, has reduced the speed by changing the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane, and the Plaintiff, who followed Defendant 1, has changed the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane, but is bound by Defendant 1, as Defendant 1’s speed has decreased.

However, while Defendant 2's vehicle driven along the two lanes, there was an accident that Defendant 1 and the damaged vehicle face with each other in sequence.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

From October 8, 2018 to November 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 18,293,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (excluding KRW 500,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1-10; Eul evidence 1-5; Eul evidence 1-5; Eul evidence 1-3; and the purport of the whole of the images and arguments

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the fact that the accident of this case was found to be the fault ratio of the driver of the vehicle of this case and the driver of the vehicle of this case who changed the vehicle of this case and the driver of the vehicle of this case, who did not secure the safety distance and neglected the duty of front-time care. The accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle of this case who changed the vehicle of this case and the driver of the vehicle of this vehicle of this case who changed the vehicle of this case in the vehicle of this case, in light of the circumstance of the accident of this

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.15 2017나37477

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.21 2019나5443

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2016나41196

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.22 2019나38795

-부산지방법원 2018.04.19 2017나49799