logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.29 2016나63585
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation that operates a mutual aid project, such as the ownership, use, and management of a vehicle with respect to the private taxi operated by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 09:00 on December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded into four-lanes in the direction of the railway station in the direction of the railway station in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, while the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle that was seeking to enter the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the four-lane road in the direction of the driving direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff repaid the Plaintiff’s repair cost of KRW 1,768,000 to an industrial company that accepted the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, i.e., the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who intends to enter the road of the fourth line of way on the road of the first line of way on the right side of the road, due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s assistant, and caused the instant accident by neglecting the duty of the front line while driving along the right side of the road in advance, and neglecting the duty of the right side of the road. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assistant also has the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident by carefully examining the direction of the vehicle, if there is a vehicle seeking to enter the lane from the right side of the road on the front line of its proceeding.

arrow