logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.11.15 2016가단35870
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,584,950 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 22, 2015 to November 15, 2017, and the following.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff is the party who suffered damage due to the following traffic accidents, and the Defendant is the C-Motor vehicle quantity owned by B (hereinafter “A-Motor vehicle”).

(ii) D was driven by the Plaintiff, who is in progress in accordance with normal signal at the right side of the proceeding, in violation of the signal signal at the speed of 2374 phase distance intersection on April 22, 2015, while driving a sea-going vehicle owned by B at around 19:45, April 22, 2015.

(3) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as brain-dead sugar and damage to incomplete sea water. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply).

- The purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the accident in this case occurred due to D's violation of signal signal, which is the driver of the harming Vehicle, and thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the harming Vehicle, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff in the accident in this case in accordance with Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Articles 724 and 726-2 of the Commercial Act.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited to 60%, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s negligence, such as, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s access to the intersection where the signal is changed, the Plaintiff did not wear safety caps, and the Plaintiff voluntarily suspended treatment.

According to the records of evidence No. 4-2, F, a witness at the time of the instant accident, can be recognized as the fact that the police already stated that a sea-going vehicle had already been changed to a stop signal before entering the intersection.

arrow