logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.07 2015나37534
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

13. Fact of recognition; 13. A person eligible to file a claim for compensation with an insurance company, who falls under any of the following, and the specific scope of the insured shall be at the risk of complying with the issue of each guarantee:

A registered insured person: A person who owns, uses, and manages an insured motor vehicle and who is listed in the name insured column of the insurance policy designated by the policyholder.

(c) the Insured is the person who uses or manages the insured motor vehicle with the consent of the Insured.

(e) an insured driver: a person who is operating an insured motor vehicle (including a driver) for another insured person (such as life insured, relative insured, consent insured, and beneficiary).

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to the vehicle BK car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) with Switzerland Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scar”), and the terms and conditions of the instant insurance contract provide for the “insured” as follows:

B. On August 19, 2013, Scar lent the Plaintiff’s vehicle to C, and the relevant vehicle rental insurance column stated that “I will not receive insurance benefits from a third party other than lessee or a drunk driving” (hereinafter “instant contract clause”).

C. Around August 20, 2013, around the new wall that led to C, the Defendant, a substitute driver, was in charge of driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant, around 02:00 on the same day, did not discover the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) who was under the influence of alcohol while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front day of the Eart located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and did not discover the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) who was under the influence of alcohol and shocked the victim’s chest part with the front wheels of the left side of the Plaintiff

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D. D.

arrow