(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.23 2015나1351

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 2015.04.23 2015나1351

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AWts’ automobiles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of B rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 04:20 on October 24, 2013, C driven the Plaintiff’s side and proceeded two-lanes of the third line road of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D in the direction of customs history from the Gangnam-gu office distance. On the other hand, C, before the direction of the flow, was shocked into the front part of the Plaintiff’s front part of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,563,00 in total for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and for the replacement vehicle rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the evidence revealed earlier, the accident in this case occurred immediately after the vehicle passes through a signal apparatus, and the vehicle on the side of the defendant changed the two-lane to the two-lane, while driving the three-lane prior to passing through the private road. On the day immediately before passing through the private road, the non-vehicle combining the two-lane road on the right side was parked on the road on the front side, and after stopping, the vehicle on the side of the defendant who gets out of the vehicle passed the private road at the speed as is before passing through the private road, and the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff gets out of the defendant. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident in this case overlaps with the negligence of the driver of the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff , who failed to perform the duty of securing the safety distance, the negligence of the driver of the vehicle on the front side, and the private road on the new signal apparatus installed, and even after changing the road immediately after passing through the private road.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.17 2014나69657

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2015나25043

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.17 2014나68173

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나5919

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나62554