logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.25 2015가단5331506
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant: 12,00,000 won to Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from April 10, 2015 to May 25, 2017.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) E driven a F bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”) around 09:40 on April 10, 2015, and stopped at the H regularly located in the north-gu G at the port of port at the port of port, shut down the front door, and opened the entrance, around the time of departure, the Plaintiff A, from the entrance to the entrance, was found to be immediately discovered and operated, and thereby, Plaintiff A exceeded the Defendant bus.

(2) The plaintiff A suffered from the 11, 12 chest and the 4rd pressure frame, etc. due to the instant accident.

(3) Plaintiff B, C, and D are children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to Defendant bus.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, although the driver of the Defendant bus has a duty to fully close the bus entrance and start the bus, it can be recognized that the instant accident occurred by discovering and rapidly operating the Plaintiff from the entrance to the entrance at the time of opening the entrance in violation of this duty. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator for Defendant bus, as a mutual aid business operator of the instant case.

C. However, according to the above evidence, even though the plaintiff Gap should also promote his own safety within the bus, it was erroneous that the plaintiff Gap already started from the bus to start up with the entrance without holding his hand, etc., and such errors of the plaintiff Gap were caused by the accident of this case.

Ultimately, the argument of this case, such as Plaintiff A’s negligence, the details and degree of the instant accident, and the parts and degree of the injury and the aftermath disability, and the progress of treatment, etc.

arrow