logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.16 2019나68741
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”), with respect to CMW 320d Gan Turos xDr vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”).

B. On April 28, 2018, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle, driving the Defendant vehicle, and proceeding the Plaintiff’s front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was straighted in accordance with the new name on the first-lane of the opposite bank section, with the front part of the Defendant vehicle’s front pande, in the front right part, while driving the Plaintiff’s front part of the Defendant vehicle, who was straighted in accordance with the new name on the front right part of the front pande in the front direction of the Defendant vehicle, from the front side of the tunnel to the luxic cross bus terminal.

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

Plaintiff

After the instant accident, E, the owner of the vehicle, sold the Plaintiff’s vehicle without repair, and requested the payment of the unpaid repair cost. Of the insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,496,00,000 in total to Nonparty F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), which created a mortgage on the Plaintiff’s vehicle on May 28, 2018, with the unpaid repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with its own vehicle damage security (50,000,000 won).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence or video evidence 6 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the facts acknowledged prior to the negligence ratio, and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver as 20%: 80%.

① The right turn to the left at the intersection where the right turn to the non-protective coordinate is allowed on the surface of the artificial bus terminal, which is the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, which is the place where the instant accident occurred.

arrow