(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.04.26 2018나57995

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) 부산지방법원 2019.04.26 2018나57995

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. The Plaintiff is the owner of C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); the Defendant’s vehicle changed its course from the first lane to the second lane on November 6, 2017, around 15:55, from the nearest road located in Busan-gu, Busan-gu E, the fact that the Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven in the second lane of the said road (hereinafter “instant accident”) was shocked by the front side of the Defendant vehicle’s right side (hereinafter “instant accident”) is not a dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

2. It is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to 90% in consideration of the following: (a) the background and point of the instant accident; (b) the point of the accident; (c) the shock level and degree of damage; and (d) the degree of damage inflicted on the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. According to each description of Gap's repair cost (1,90,000 won) Nos. 2 and 7 and all the arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiff bears KRW 500,000 at the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle and KRW 1,400,000 at the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle.

B. Under the terms and conditions of automobile insurance, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff shall compensate for the amount of 3,228,000 won (63,000 won per day of the same class vehicle x 30% x 17 days per repair period) equivalent to 30% of the rental fee for the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the same class vehicle.

Where it is possible to repair a vehicle for business use due to an accident, it is impossible to conduct the business by using the vehicle for a period necessary for the repair, and thus, loss of profits which would have been incurred if the vehicle had continued to conduct the business shall be compensated as ordinary damages.

However, it is insufficient to say that a non-business vehicle has not been used during the repair period, and the taxi shall be a taxi.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.01 2016나50066

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.10.15 2019나30515

-광주지방법원순천지원광양시법원 2017.08.18 2016가단40

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.12.04 2014가단35128

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.20 2017나70801