(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.31 2017나79457

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.31 2017나79457

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to BMW 320i vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 9, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parking at the 315-on underground parking lot, Sungdo-dong, Sungdo-dong, Sungdo-dong, Sungdo-dong, Sungdong-dong-dong-dong on July 16:31, 2016, and the part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle which was stopped on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the lower part after the left side of the Plaintiff’

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

The Defendant paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,848,000 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

Then, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation and resolution of the instant accident with the committee for deliberation and resolution of the instant accident, and on February 6, 2017, the Committee recognized the liability ratio due to the instant accident as 100% on the ground of “the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle is a serious accident for which the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops in the parking lot, etc.,” and decided to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,848,000 to the Plaintiff. While the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination, the Committee decided to maintain the result of the lower court on April 10, 2017.

E. On May 4, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,848,00 to the Defendant according to the Committee’s deliberation and resolution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle cannot be deemed to have completely stopped, such as repeating the power failure within the parking area at the time of the instant accident, and there was negligence in which the Defendant’s driver did not take safety measures for the prevention of the accident, such as sounding the light, etc., and the negligence of the Defendant’s driver is at least 50%, and the Defendant is at least 50% of the indemnity paid from the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.07 2016나25200

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.08 2020나53710

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.08 2019나23526

-창원지방법원 2020.12.17 2019나64898

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.26 2018나17210