logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.22 2017가단17744
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant paid KRW 7,779,776 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from January 18, 2017 to August 22, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

가. D은 2017. 1. 18. 17:00경 E 차량(이하 ‘피고차량’이라고 한다)을 운전하여 서울 강서구 F 소재 G매장 앞 편도 3차로 도로 중 3차로를 염창역 방면에서 등촌역 방면으로 진행하다가, 공항대로 63길 근방 ‘ㅏ’자형 교차로에 이르러 우회전을 하던 중, 위 3차로 우측 빈 공간을 이용하여 직진 주행 중이던 원고 운전의 오토바이를 충격하였다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the upper pelle, the right pelle part, etc., due to the accident of this case.

C. After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant, paid insurance proceeds, such as KRW 4,245,140, and KRW 1,000,000, to the Plaintiff as the advance payment for damages.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 6, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. In full view of the above recognition facts and the shock level of the original and the Defendant’s vehicle, road conditions at the location of the instant accident, etc., the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who neglected the duty of care to drive safely by examining the flow of the traffic before and after the instant accident, by examining the flow of the traffic at the point of the instant accident.

Since the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, the defendant is responsible for compensating for the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

B. However, as can be seen through each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff did not secure the safety distance with the Defendant’s vehicle, which is a prior vehicle, and failed to pass through the Defendant’s vehicle without using the right vacant space on the lane on which the Defendant vehicle is driving. The Plaintiff’s error is deemed to have caused the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and thus, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 40% of the total amount of damages.

3. Scope of compensation for damage.

arrow