logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.20 2015나13963
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 15, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant for non-dividendd holidays, traffic accidents (hereinafter “the time insurance”) with the following content.

“The insured: The insured period of the Plaintiff: From May 15, 2011 to May 15, 2012, when the insured subject to the payment of insurance proceeds and the insured insured on May 15, 2012 fall under a state of disability equivalent to not less than 3% to not more than 10% of the disability payment rate prescribed in the Disability Classification Table on the grounds of a traffic accident that occurred on holidays during the insurance period: the insured amount (20 million won) 】 disability payment rate (3% to 100%).

B. On September 13, 2011, the Plaintiff collisioned with a door-to-door vehicle that was parked after riding a bicycle on the roads near Sungnam-gu Yangdong-dong, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the blood transfusion, the string of a wide size of each side of the external bridge, the string of a sloping wall, the string of both sides of the shoulder, and the tension, etc.

C. Thereafter, on March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff received 1/2 (42% of the normal movement scope) from the Jinnam-si from the back-si Department of Sungnam-si, the opening of the back to the right line, and the table and the table of the audience due to rout and routing heat. On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received sufficient medical treatment after undergoing the operation at the rehabilitation department of the Gangnamnam Synae Hospital, but the remaining shoulder and rupture of the back to the back line were reduced by 1/2 (42%) or less of the normal movement scope, and the Plaintiff was diagnosed by 10% of the total disability rate of 10% of the total disability rate of 8.5% of the total disability rate of 10% of the total disability rate of 3rd or a bridge rental (hereinafter referred to as “15% disability rate of 2.5%”). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received the diagnosis from the Defendant.

arrow