(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.18 2013가단5125905

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.18 2013가단5125905

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The defendant is about KRW 138,129,376 to the plaintiff A, KRW 133,129,376 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 5 million to the plaintiff C and the above money.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) D, at around 03:30 on June 27, 2013, driving a vehicle E-Aburged under the influence of alcohol content of 0.152% (hereinafter “the instant hazard vehicle”), and was negligent in neglecting the front bank and the right and right and right and right and right and right and the part of the network F (hereinafter “the network”) in order to install safety signs, etc. to induce the construction on the above internal underground map at the time when he was negligent in driving the vehicle E-Aburged under the influence of alcohol content of 0.152% (hereinafter “the instant hazard vehicle”).

The Deceased died from his job due to damage to the two sides.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) The Plaintiff A and B are the parents of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff C are the women of the Deceased.

On the other hand, the defendant is the insurer of the instant household.

B. (1) According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the instant accident, unless there are special circumstances, as the insurer of the instant sea vehicle.

(2) The Defendant asserted that D, which caused the instant accident, had difficulty recognizing that it was a road work in the vicinity of the instant accident site due to the severe time, was difficult for the Deceased to be aware of the fact that it was a road work in the vicinity of the instant accident site, and that D, a driver of the instant vehicle, was negligent in failing to induce the vehicle by securing a sufficient distance from the construction board installed near the accident site. However, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit in light of the fact that D, a driver of the instant vehicle, was in a situation where it was difficult to drive the vehicle normally due to drinking, there was no obstacle to the accident at the time of the accident, and there is no reason to perform the said duty at a distance away from

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul evidence No. 3.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.03.23 2016가단339265

-창원지방법원 2016.10.28 2015가단84688

-대구지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단4023

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.27 2016가단5207969

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.20 2016가단5232217