logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2016나83428
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. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 16:40 on September 1, 2016, the Defendant vehicle: (a) entered the intersection along a wooden-ro 11-lane and a 50-distance 50-day intersection near the New-dong Seoul Southern District Court in Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul; (b) compared the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s left-hand part of the front-hand part of the Defendant vehicle, which entered the intersection from the right-hand side of the running direction to the intersection, depending on an Oero 50-lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time of the instant accident, traffic control was not performed at the said intersection.

C. The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,569,000 in total to October 20, 2016, with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant’s vehicle, without examining whether there is a vehicle entering the intersection in which traffic control is not carried out, did not enter the intersection while passing through the intersection and passing through the intersection. Thus, the instant accident occurred due to the fault on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle. 2) The Plaintiff’s vehicle cannot be deemed to have entered the intersection more widely, or the Plaintiff’s vehicle cannot be deemed to have clearly entered the intersection. In addition, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in failing to conduct a safe driving, such as temporarily stopping or checking whether there is a vehicle entering the intersection while passing through the intersection.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., evidence No. 10 and evidence No. 12-1 and No. 2 submitted by the Plaintiff, based on the overall purport of the arguments presented by the Plaintiff, are considered as a whole.

arrow