logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.21 2018나46010
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. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On September 5, 2017, around 06:40, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the parking zone of the indoor parking lot in the two lux apartment complex located in the lux road in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving the road in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle toward the right side from the left side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction, and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked on the front side of the Plaintiff’s front side.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 321,880 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (in case of additional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle was ordinarily in the parking area, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not discover the Plaintiff vehicle due to neglecting the duty of charging attention in the indoor parking area, and caused the instant accident. The instant accident entirely occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding normally on the road front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle started from the parking area without confirming the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle, and caused the instant accident. The instant accident was entirely caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier are recognized.

arrow