(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.04.21 2015나58087

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 2016.04.21 2015나58087

구상금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B cab (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).

B. On July 30, 2013, around 08:50, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the state of alcohol 0.115% of blood alcohol content, and the Plaintiff’s driver was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the north bank of the Jam-gu Intersection 4 lanes in front of the 624 Jam-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul.

Meanwhile, while the driver of the Defendant taxi stops on the right side of the above four-lane while driving the Defendant taxi, and the driver of the Defendant taxi opened the door of the driver’s seat of the Defendant taxi. In this case, there was an accident that conflicts between the two-lane of the Plaintiff vehicle driving along four-lanes and the driver’s seat of the Defendant taxi.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". C. The accident of this case results in serious injury to the driver of defendant taxi.

By December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,650,440 in total to the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as damages for the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being added to the purport of the entire arguments, as to the ratio of negligence between the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant taxi, are determined, namely, that the defendant taxi stops on the right side of the four-lane road during the operation of the vehicle, the width of the four-lane road at that time is about 3.9m, and the width of the side of the road is about 1.8m (No. (No. (1)), and when the defendant taxi stops on the side, it seems that when the defendant taxi stops on the side, the left side of the taxi was extending to the boundary line of the four-lane road connected to the road, and under the above circumstances, the driver of the defendant taxi would have opened the driver's seat.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단211381

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.15 2018나61842

-부산지방법원 2014.01.23 2013가단12231

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2018.06.27 2017가단21943

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2013가단24298