(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.27 2015가단15412

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.27 2015가단15412

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The defendant's 49,513,253 won to the plaintiff A, 1,00,000 won to the plaintiff B, and 1,00,000 won to the plaintiff C and each of them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2015, Plaintiff A was on the top of the steering line of F-Motor vehicles driven by E (hereinafter referred to as the “C-A-A-A-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U

B. Plaintiff B and Plaintiff C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the instant sea vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, since the accident of this case occurred due to the operation of the vehicle of this case driven by E, the defendant, the insurer of this case, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

B. (1) The limitation of liability (1) Plaintiff A is the president of the G cafeteria, and Plaintiff A is an employee of the above cafeteria on the day of the instant case, and Plaintiff A visited Plaintiff A and sent an acting driver to Daejeon on the day of the instant case. However, the instant accident occurred that Plaintiff A was carrying Plaintiff A on the front line of the vehicle, and the instant accident occurred, taking into account the purpose of the instant vehicle operation, the relationship between Plaintiff A and E, and the situation of Plaintiff A’s movement, etc., and thus, the Defendant’s liability should be mitigated.

However, even though the plaintiff A was called an acting engineer, E is deemed to be a member of Daejeon and became Daejeon. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff A was accompanied by the plaintiff A. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(2) In addition, when the plaintiff's injury was caused by the accident of the plaintiff A, the plaintiff A did not wear a safety level at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff A's body was sealed in the future at the time of shock, and the plaintiff A's body was sealed.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원해남지원 2015.01.13 2013가단20769

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.23 2018가단5222054

-대구지방법원서부지원 2014.01.16 2013가단83

-울산지방법원 2019.12.11 2018가단51791

-의정부지방법원 2018.07.13 2017가단112775