logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.22 2019가단7462
손해배상(자) 청구의 소
Text

1. The defendant's KRW 147,136,205 for each of the plaintiffs and 5% per annum from November 22, 2018 to November 22, 2019.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) D is difficult to drive normally under the influence of alcohol on November 22, 2018 at around 22:25, 2018, despite the fact that it is difficult to drive normally while under the influence of alcohol content of at least 0.126%, it is deemed that the E-Korean cruise car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) The driver of the vehicle, while proceeding the front road of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the Guro basin in the digital body area where the front road was added, caused by negligence that did not well look at the situation of the front bank, and caused G, which tried to drive a five-ton cleaning vehicle working in a state of stopping on the right side of the front line of the Defendant vehicle, to shock the front part of the front line of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) On December 6, 2018, G died from an accident in this case due to the Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam

(hereinafter referred to as “G. 3”) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 12, and 13 (including number number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry or video, the whole purport of the pleading;

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the deceased and the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, unless there are special circumstances, since the deceased died by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited since the deceased's negligence, which did not pay attention to the progress of the vehicle at night while driving on the road at night.

However, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the video of Gap evidence No. 12-19 and Gap evidence No. 13, the recycled waste collection vehicle, which was stopped on the right side of the point of the accident in this case, was showing an emergency, etc., and the deceased and the Dong fee, after the light color work uniform, are moving back the vehicle.

arrow