logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2017나39596
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. On June 22, 2016, the Defendant driving a C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 00:30, and driving the three-lane of the 156-lane 5-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, into a shooting distance range of light apartment, from the shooting distance range of the 156-lane 5-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. On the other hand, the front part of the Plaintiff’s E-vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), which was behind the Defendant’s vehicle, was shocked by the front part of the vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the three-lane of the 156-lane 5-lane 5-lane 156, into a shooting distance range of light apartment.

On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff received a convaluative treatment from a oriental medical hospital at F.F. medical care (the medical treatment cost of KRW 182,290 shall be paid by the insurer of the Defendant vehicle) and received the diagnosis of “a convaluated signboard disability accompanied by the nephical ppuri disease certificate,” which requires four weeks’ treatment at the above hospital.

[Evidence Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 4-3 and evidence Nos. 4-3, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) The National Research and Investigation Agency of Science and Investigation that the degree of damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle caused by the instant accident is very insignificant; and (b) in relation to the instant accident, the National Research and Investigation Agency sent the appraisal result (as a result of the Roman analysis, evidence No. 1) to the effect that the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle can be formed when the speed change of the Plaintiff’s vehicle does not exceed 8km/h (e.g., conditions that do not cause significant sports change to the passengers on board). However, the Plaintiff received a diagnosis of a minor traffic accident after undergoing the diagnosis of a warning sign at the F oriental Medical Hospital on June 23, 2016 following the instant accident; and (c) if the Plaintiff did not have physical shock or physical shock.

arrow