logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.26 2016나42632
구상금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

B. C, around 12:00 on October 29, 2015, when driving the Defendant vehicle and driving the Cheongju-si, left the Seowon-gu, the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was excavated from the towing vehicle driven on the two-lanes in the front direction while driving the vehicle into the Seoul bank in accordance with one-lane between the four-lanes in the southwest-do of the Busan metropolitan Highway, the direction was shocked. Accordingly, the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was changed from the two-lane to the one-lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 312,600 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul's video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. The plaintiff asserts that C caused the accident of this case by shocking negligence, as long as C neglected to perform the pre-defacing c, even though it is necessary to see the fallens away from the road well.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred under force majeure where C cannot avoid falling down on the road.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the descriptions of evidence No. 3 and evidence Nos. 1 and evidence No. 2 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings on the images of evidence No. 2; ① the place where the instant accident occurred is an expressway driven by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle under high speed; ② the place where the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are displayed entirely to the right side on the basis of the direction of the vehicle’s running, ② the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not left alone on the expressway, but was far away from the towing vehicle driven on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

arrow