logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.05 2018나43929
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 insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A NewM3 Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B urban bus (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 3, 2017, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on and around 08:37 degrees near the 3rd road of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, along the five-lane road near the 3rd road of the 5-lane road in the northwest of the nuclear hospital, and went into the right-way road at the intersection of the west Ambassador-ro. Under the new name, the Defendant’s vehicle going into the said intersection from the left-hand side of the driving direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle discovered the Plaintiff’s vehicle and speeded the Plaintiff’s vehicle beyond C, D, the passenger of the Defendant’s vehicle, and accordingly, C (F, 1960) sustained injuries, such as salt and tension, D(F, 1975)’s injury to each tension, which requires treatment for two weeks.

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

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,351,320 (= KRW 4,380,320 + KRW 971,000 + KRW 4,380 + KRW 320 + KRW 971,000) in total, including, from August 23, 2017 to November 1, 2017, the sum of KRW 4,380,320, as well as the sum of KRW 971,00 from August 14, 2017 to September 29, 2017, with D’s treatment costs and the amount of agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the party’s assertion is (i) the instant accident is the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle who makes a bypass in violation of the signal while entering the intersection where signal, etc. is installed, without properly examining whether there is a vehicle traveling along the intersection and without checking whether there is a vehicle traveling along the intersection.

arrow