logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.18 2019나71648
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. At around 10:00 on December 16, 2018, in the street near the upper village of the Jinju-si, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped due to the shock of the F vehicle (hereinafter “victim”), and the damaged vehicle stopped. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the stop of the damaged vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and contacted with the fence of the central separation unit (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,243,200 (excluding one’s own shares 310,000) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

In the occurrence of the instant accident, the first instance court judged 40% of the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle: 60%: 40%, and ordered the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff 31,280 won [1,243,200 won of total amount of damages (i.e., KRW 1,243,200 of the Plaintiff’s insurance money x 310,000 of self-paid) x 40% - Self-paid 310,000 won] from January 29, 2019, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation from January 29, 2019 to October 17, 2019, and damages for delay calculated by 12% per annum under the Civil Act from the next day to the day of full payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7, images, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle inevitably contacted the central separation zone in the process of avoiding the damaged vehicle parked due to the preceding accident caused by the Defendant’s vehicle.

Furthermore, even in the situation where it is not easy to operate a vehicle due to the condition of a slurged road at the time, the vehicle of the plaintiff is the maximum.

arrow