logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.21 2016나53755
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is as follows.

A person who drives a horse such as described in paragraph (1).

B. On July 31, 2015, at around 16:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Plaintiff’s driver’s horse, who proceeded with the Plaintiff’s horse (hereinafter “Defendant’s horse”) and the front side of the Plaintiff’s horse with the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the front line, the front line of the front line, the front line of the front line, and the front side of the Defendant horse with the front line of the Plaintiff’s horse.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 16,650,000 under the name of the repair cost for Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence as mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6 (including paper numbers) and by the overall purport of the presentation of documents to the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office on December 30, 2016 and the entire purport of the pleadings, are as follows: (i) the roads where the plaintiff's vehicle was in progress are small; (ii) the roads where the defendant was in progress are entering the road on the right side of the road where the plaintiff's vehicle was in progress, and it conflicts with the plaintiff's vehicle before the vehicle entered the intersection. In light of the above facts, the defendant's duty of care was not fulfilled even if the vehicle's progress should be sufficiently examined before entering the intersection, and (iii) the vehicle's speed is about 10km/h of the road that is in progress.

arrow