logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.08.28 2013가단23706
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,023,072 as well as 5% per annum from October 14, 2012 to August 28, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The grounds for responsibility (1) B, around 12:10 on October 14, 2012, driven a D taxi (hereinafter “accidented vehicle”) at a three-lane distance from the signal line, etc. in front of the C Apartment apartment in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and caused the Plaintiff’s injury, such as an open thale, etc., of the Plaintiff’s driving, which was left left to the front of the 1 commercial complex from the B B, due to the negligence of failing to properly look at the surface signs and the front section of the 3-laned road in line with the 3-lane in line with the new subparagraph, while driving a D taxi at the front of the C apartment in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul.

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity which has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the foregoing vehicle.

(3) According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator for the accident vehicle, except in extenuating circumstances.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of exemption should be exempted since the accident of this case occurred due to the whole negligence of the plaintiff who driven in violation of the signal.

In light of the time and place of the instant accident, as seen earlier, the instant accident occurred due to the failure to perform the above duty of care despite the duty of care to safely cross-section the surface signs and the front section by examining the road surface signs and the front section in a proper manner. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of exemption is rejected.

C. Limit of liability, however, the Plaintiff erred by failing to make a left turn in violation of the signals at the intersection where the signal, etc. is sent to the Plaintiff, and such errors were caused by the occurrence or expansion of damages caused by the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 10% in consideration of this.

2...

arrow