logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.02 2015나8147
구상금
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s low PP car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s car”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into the respective automobile insurance contract with respect to the BS5 car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. Around 18:10 on February 13, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the one side at one-lane road, one-lane, and one-lane road, where the vehicle is located in the front of the road, and driving the steering gear on the right side in the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle operated the steering gear on the right side due to the ice ice, without properly operating the steering gear on the part of the road, which led the Plaintiff’s vehicle to see one-clock from the direction of visibility on the basis of the direction of visibility, and partly sloping the center line (hereinafter “on-way accident”). immediately thereafter, the Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, shocked the front even after the front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front part of the part along the fenced part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,762,100 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the wind that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle does not secure the safety distance with the front line, while driving the Defendant vehicle in a mobile phone with the front line, and could not respond appropriately to the preceding accident. The main cause of the instant accident is that the driver’s gross negligence caused the instant accident.

3. The judgment of the vehicle, the driver of any motor vehicle, and the driver of any other motor vehicle, when following the motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, may avoid the collision with the motor vehicle traveling ahead of it when the latter stops suddenly.

arrow