logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나15252
보험금반환
Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. On April 26, 2017, at or around 21:10, a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment with respect to a traffic accident that occurred near the Southern Sea Highway 29 km at or near the Jinyang-si, New Sea Highway;

2. The instant accident was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle (A) stopped on the two-lanes in front of the expressway, and the Defendant’s vehicle (C) driven after the vehicle (B bus), which was driven along the one-lane, was driven by the vehicle that discovered the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front, but failed to avoid it, and the part that was driven by the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle. Although the Defendant’s vehicle had a duty of care to ensure sufficient safety distance and driving on the expressway, it was sufficient to view the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the foregoing.

However, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is a claim for return of unjust enrichment that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant, claiming for the return of the above amount that the Plaintiff claimed without fault of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, after paying KRW 90,000, an amount equivalent to 30% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle out of the total repair cost of the damaged vehicle 3,300,000,000. Thus, insofar as the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is recognized

3. The defendant's appeal is justified.

arrow