logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.17 2015나47210
손해배상(자)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the respective corresponding parts of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are dried or added, and the “Class 20” of the 20th “B” (hereinafter “the network”) “B” and the “Class 9” of the 6th.

Limitation of Liability: Defendant’s liability of 60%

1.(c)

see Paragraph 1. c. “.”

The limitation of liability is based on "70% of the defendant's liability," and the calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the replacement as follows. Therefore, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for 3rd 14 to 4rd 1

C. However, according to each of the above evidence, the deceased was negligent in finding that the vehicle of the defendant was close to the expressway at night while driving on the expressway at night, and that the vehicle of the defendant was close to the front door, and the direction of avoiding the defendant's vehicle was set up. Since such negligence was caused by the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage, the defendant's liability is limited to 70%.

(30% of the fault ratio of the deceased). The defendant asserted to the effect that the accident in this case occurred because the deceased was unable to detect the defendant vehicle due to the stroke, and thus the deceased's fault is larger, but the direction of the deceased to avoid the defendant vehicle was set at the direction of the deceased. The reason seems to be that the driver of the defendant vehicle's negligence, which caused the preceding accident at night, has come to rhym between the two-lane and the three-lane, and at the time, it was difficult for the deceased to easily discover or forecast the defendant vehicle while operating at night and at night.

arrow