(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.10 2013가단5105260

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.10 2013가단5105260

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 230,719,481 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 29, 2012 to January 10, 2018 for the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D Private Taxi driven by C (hereinafter “Defendant”)

() On December 29, 2012, around 2012:30, the Plaintiff, a passenger seated on the top of the Defendant’s vehicle, was faced with his head and knenee on the front side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). Around December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff, a passenger seated on the top of the Defendant’s vehicle, suffered damage from the head and kneeeel part on the front side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3 through 5 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the recognition of liability and the recognition of the limitation, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff was faced with head and knee in front part of the defendant vehicle, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not have a safety level at the time of the accident in this case, and that since the plaintiff contributed to the occurrence of the damage or the expansion of damage, the defendant's liability for damages should be mitigated by more than 20%, it is hard to recognize that the plaintiff was not in dispute between the parties, but that the plaintiff was faced with head and knee in front part of the defendant vehicle, this fact alone is insufficient to find that the plaintiff did not have a safety level, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the plaintiff did not have a safety mark, and rather, according to the statement in subparagraph 3-1 of the evidence No. 3, it can be recognized that the clinical records of the emergency medical center of the E Hospital where the plaintiff was transferred and treated after the accident in this case, the fact that the plaintiff was being a safety level mark. In light

Therefore, 100% of the defendant's liability is recognized.

2. The scope of liability for damages is below.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.03.27 2017가단303423

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.07.12 2014가단200561

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.05.31 2018가단55749

-서울남부지방법원 2020.05.21 2018가단264622

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.21 2016가단5025990