logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.19 2017나53950
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

Plaintiff

On November 4, 2016, 18:30, Namcheon-ro, Namcheon-do, 273-15, the two lanes in front of the Geumcheon-do, the Defendant, who was proceeding in the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was in the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was driving with the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front section of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked.

By December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,758,330,00 as insurance proceeds, total of KRW 5,560,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, for passenger C, D’s treatment costs, and agreed amount of KRW 5,198,30, and KRW 5,560 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The Plaintiff: The instant accident occurred due to the rapid operation of the Defendant’s vehicle without any justifiable reason. Since the ratio of Defendant’s driver’s liability related to the instant accident exceeds 30%, Defendant’s 3,227,499 won (i.e., 10,758,30 won x 30%) as compensation amount.

B. Defendant: The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was forced to stop a dog on the road, and the instant accident occurred solely due to the Plaintiff’s driver’s breach of the duty to maintain the safety distance and the violation of the duty to keep the front watch.

3. The following circumstances, which are considered comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle, without securing the safety distance to avoid the collision with the previous Defendant vehicle in preparation for a sudden situation, is proceeding along the vehicle. ② The Defendant’s driver, immediately after the occurrence of a traffic accident, prepared by the vehicle.

arrow