logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나24089
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

B. On January 19, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.098% at the 07:30% of alcohol content, and then turn to the left on the left at the market side of the D apartment in front of the D apartment at the time of Jinjin, in violation of the signal at the front distance intersection of the D apartment at the time of Jinjin, and collision with the front part of the Defendant vehicle with the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which is straight back from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle to the right side by normal signal, and the collision with the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle at the front part of the other vehicle in front of the Plaintiff vehicle at the direction of the vehicle.

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

Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was repaired due to the damage to the string, right-side, and rigr, rier, rier, rier, etc., and the Defendant paid insurance proceeds of KRW 25,607,000 (the repair cost is KRW 20,807,000) in total with the repair cost and the rental fee of the Plaintiff’s vehicle until May 31, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 (including virtual number), Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's prior assertion on the plaintiff's appeal was corrected after the lapse of the correction period for the first instance court's order to recognize the plaintiff's appeal, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is unlawful. However, even after the expiration of the correction period, it is impossible to issue an order to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal if the correction is made before the rejection order is issued. The records show that the plaintiff fulfilled the correction order prior to the rejection order

3. The assertion by the parties on the merits;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the accident of this case occurred is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

arrow