logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.07 2017나91686
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the C motor vehicle owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), which includes a special agreement on coverage by an uninsured motor vehicle, and the Defendant is a driver of D motor vehicle, the liability insurance of which is only covered (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 15:38 on June 21, 2011, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, there was an accident shocking with the Defendant’s vehicle, who had been on the right side from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at a private distance intersection at which no signal, etc. is installed in front of the members of the new apartment unit in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter “instant accident”). B asserted that the instant accident suffered from post-standing stress disorder due to the instant accident, and received treatment at Han-dong Council members and Seoul National University Hospital, etc.

C. By March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,000,000 (the amount calculated on the ground that B suffered from a labor disability of 22% due to an stress disorder) to B as insurance proceeds the sum of the medical expenses received from the above hospital, etc., and KRW 23,243,870, the Plaintiff received KRW 8,634,840, an amount equivalent to liability insurance from the liability insurance company, which is the liability insurance company of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff’s assertion was caused by the instant accident, i.e., the Plaintiff’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and caused the Defendant’s negligence, who neglected the duty of suspension and the duty of prior watching, while driving the intersection along the intersection of the side road where no signal, etc. was installed.

arrow