logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2019나1038
구상금
Text

The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the accident of this case, which conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle running in the direction of (i) the direction of (ii) the vehicle passing through the instant intersection while the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes through the instant intersection at around the Daejeon E-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant intersection”) at around July 19:08 at the time of the occurrence of the accident. The accident of this case was destroyed by the front end of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front end of the Defendant’s vehicle. The amount of the insurance money paid at KRW 14,583,620, KRW 500,000, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 2222, Jun. 222, 2018, was as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, 8 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the whole purport of the arguments is as follows: ① the Defendant’s vehicle driven along a narrow distance from the slope of the two-lane road to the narrow distance, using the two-lane road, and stopped at the instant intersection in accordance with the stop signal; ② the Defendant’s vehicle was parked along the stop signal; ② the vehicle was already parked along the stop signal at the intersection in front of the direction; among them, the vehicle was already entering the instant crosswalk and stopped in front of the crosswalk, and the vehicle stopped in front of the crosswalk immediately after the passage of the crosswalk. However, even if the Defendant’s vehicle had already stopped prior to entering the instant intersection, it was found that the pedestrians continued to stop according to the stop signal; ③ However, despite the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle was still stopped before entering the instant intersection, it was changed only by the signal, etc. as above.

arrow