logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.15 2020나40299
구상금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first instance judgment is the purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, on the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 to 7:

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) on the D Freight Vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On October 5, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff is not clear whether the driver of the victimized vehicle is the driver of the Plaintiff or a third party in the situation where the driver of the Plaintiff is in control of the operation of the Plaintiff vehicle, even though it is not sufficiently recognized that any group of vehicles is connected to the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle under the circumstances where the driver of the Plaintiff is in control of the operation of the Plaintiff vehicle, since the driver of the vehicle is sufficiently recognized in this judgment, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle directly affected the driver’s seat of the vehicle under convenience should be considered to be the door of the vehicle directly damaged for the convenience.

In order to avoid the plaintiff's vehicle that had been occupying a three-lane while driving the above three-lanes, the course is changed to the left side of the plaintiff's vehicle through a part of the three-lanes and a part of the two-lanes.

H Driving conflictd with Defendant Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On January 18, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,997,00 at the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.

2. Whether the obligation for indemnity exists;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident is one of the instant vehicle drivers, not properly ascertaining the traffic condition of the Plaintiff’s surrounding vehicle and is in the loading space of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

arrow