(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2015가단154520

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 2017.04.27 2015가단154520

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,529,836 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from October 9, 2014 to April 27, 2017.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) B, at around 06:30 on October 9, 2014, driven by Csi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and operated the front road D from the slope distance to the slowly elementary school surface at the slope distance, due to the negligence that failed to properly operate the steering gear on the road on the bend road, thereby receiving the street, etc. on the right side of the Defendant vehicle from the front gate of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff on the top of the Defendant vehicle, who was on board, was injured by the Defendant vehicle, such as the pelke, the pelke, and the bones bend, etc.

(2) The Plaintiff did not wear a safety labelling at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Gap 14 evidence, Eul 5 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator for the defendant's vehicle.

C. Limit of liability, however, that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident and caused damage to the Plaintiff, which shall limit the Defendant’s liability to 90% in consideration of this point.

The defendant asserts that the defendant should limit the defendant's liability by taking account of the plaintiff's error as well as the plaintiff's duty to urge safe operation since the plaintiff did not perform his duty to urge safe operation even though B did not frequently drive the central line prior to the occurrence of the accident in this case. However, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted since it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff, a taxi passenger, has a duty to urge safe operation of the taxi driver.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, the calculation shall be as follows:

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.14 2017가단5230959

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2016가단5277487

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.08 2015가단5174932

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.29 2016가단5196922

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.25 2014나41284