(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.10.14 2020나302286

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) 대구지방법원 2020.10.14 2020나302286

가불금반환등

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under paragraph (2) is revoked.

Reasons

1. After remanding, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for a monetary judgment, and the court of first instance partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

As to this part of the part against the plaintiff, the defendants appealed against all of the part against the defendants, and the court prior to the remand dismissed all of the appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendants.

As to this, only the Defendants appealed, and the remanded court reversed and remanded the part against the Defendants in the judgment before remand.

Therefore, this Court's judgment after remand is limited to the part against the Defendants in the judgment before remand.

2. The grounds for this part after the remanding of the facts and the allegations by the parties are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the claim for medical expenses is based on the evidence indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as follows. In other words, the deceased violated the part of the front part of the plaintiff's vehicle running on the opposite side of the central line while driving on the road at Otoba, and driving on the opposite side of the road. ② The deceased invaded the central line at approximately 150 meters prior to the collision point. ② At the time of the collision, N fulfilled the duty of ex officio (10:30), so if N fulfilled the duty of ex officio, it could be possible for the deceased to sufficiently discover the ozone part of the plaintiff's office. ③ In fact, N did not consider that the deceased's office of the deceased's central line was invaded, but it was found that the deceased's accident occurred at the right side of the road, and it did not raise the plaintiff's opinion or make a statement to N. 3.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2019.06.20 2019나11478

-대구고등법원 2020.12.04 2020나21924

-서울서부지방법원 2015.06.26 2015나100

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.10 2019나20138

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.26 2019나71358