(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.28 2017가단231458

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.28 2017가단231458

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 57,363,539 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 29, 2016 to November 28, 2018; and

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 13:24, April 29, 2016, B: (a) A passenger car at C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

2) On the other hand, on the other hand, a cement structure, a cement structure was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”) by driving her and driving her on the side of a backway with no central line from the schilling surface to the schilling surface, and the front side was not schilled properly.

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the Defendant’s vehicle, was victimized by the injury of the Plaintiff, such as the flag and the flag.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap’s 3 and 4, Eul’s 1, images, and the purport of the entire pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. Limit of liability: (a) it appears that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety bell in light of the occurrence and consequence of the instant accident; (b) such negligence was the cause of the occurrence and expansion of the damage; and (c) in calculating the amount of the damage to be compensated by the Defendant, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 85% by taking this into account.

Although the Defendant asserted that the amount of compensation should be reduced on the ground that the Plaintiff was accompanied by the instant accident after having been accompanied by the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the Defendant and the aforementioned circumstance asserted by the Defendant alone are difficult to view that there is a circumstance to restrict the Defendant’s liability due to the instant accident due to the Plaintiff’s Haaking. Therefore, this part of the Defendant

2. Except as otherwise stated below, each of the relevant items of the annexed damages calculation sheet shall be subject to the scope of liability for damages.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.29 2017가단5152202

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.20 2018가단201034

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2015가단149122

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.31 2017가단5046734

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.11 2016가단5062951