(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.10 2019나48938

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.10 2019나48938

구상금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. At the time of the basic fact-finding accident, at around 22:40 on September 4, 2018, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff, and around 359 km in the parallel of the Gyeongdo-Eup at the location of the Gongdo-Eup (hereinafter “instant road”), the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved straight along the four-lanes of the instant road, the four-lanes of which are the four-lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle was overtaken in accordance with the three-lanes of the same direction. While changing the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the four-lanes of the instant road, the Defendant’s vehicle did not work in the direction direction direction, the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused the instant accident, which was shocked from the front part of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the rear part of the left side. The amount of insurance proceeds paid was as follows: 4,125,200 won of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle of the Plaintiff’s vehicle of this case.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes along the Defendant’s vehicle at night along the border, and at the excessively close distance without any indication, such as direction direction, etc., on the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As the Plaintiff’s driver could not anticipate or respond to the change of the Defendant’s vehicle, it should be recognized by negligence of 10% of the Defendant’s driver.

B. Considering that the Plaintiff’s driver was damaged before the Defendant’s vehicle, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s driver could not have predicted any change in the course of the Defendant’s vehicle at all. Therefore, in calculating the negligence ratio regarding the occurrence of the instant accident, the said negligence by the Plaintiff’s driver should be considered.

3. Determination

A. We examine the facts found in the above basic facts, and the facts.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.22 2019나82211

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.26 2019나43780

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.16 2020나11826

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.30 2018나30329

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.13 2020나19745