logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.02 2017나45452
손해배상(자)
Text

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is the same as the reasoning of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the submission of the third and fourth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

[In light of the above facts and the above evidence, the traffic accident of this case is deemed to have occurred due to the negligence of driving the vehicle without properly examining the speed limit exceeding about 40 km per hour. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the family members of the deceased and the deceased, due to the traffic accident of this case, as a mutual aid business operator of a sea-going vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the location of the traffic accident in this case is divided into a retaining wall from the underground vehicle as well as the underground vehicle as an underground vehicle as the part of the exit, and thus, it could not be anticipated that the deceased would cross the road without permission. In addition, even if the deceased complied with the speed due to the deceased's being kept with clothes in the color open in the heart, the traffic accident in this case could not avoid the traffic accident in this case. The traffic accident in this case is entirely caused by the deceased's negligence, and thus, the defendant should be exempted from liability, and even if there is no proximate causal relation between such negligence and accident, even if there is an excessive driving on the family C, the plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed.

In other words, even though at night, the occurrence of the instant traffic accident was a straight line, the Deceased was crossing the road on the right side from the left side of the running direction of the sea-going vehicle to the right side. Since there was no vehicle prior to the front of the sea-going vehicle, C continued to observe the speed limit and set the front and left side.

arrow