logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.02 2012가단306580
손해배상
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 17, 1997, the Plaintiff suffered from a traffic accident from a motor vehicle (B) that the Defendant entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract, and was treated by a hospital with the left shoulder fluor and chest fluor.

B. On December 29, 197, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement dated December 29, 1997 with the purport that the Defendant received compensation for the damage caused by the said traffic accident, renounced all rights, and does not file a civil or criminal lawsuit or objection for any reason.

C. On March 26, 1998, the plaintiff and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the new Eastdong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. in relation to the above traffic accident. Mediation was concluded on February 4, 1999. On February 5, 1999, the plaintiff and his spouse written a written waiver of the right to receive KRW 9 million from the defendant and the new Eastdong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. on the condition that they waive any claim.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. On August 25, 2005, after the traffic accident, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on August 25, 2005, the Plaintiff was using the knee scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare scare at the hospital; (b) on September 13, 2006 at the same hospital on November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff received scare scare scare scare scare scare scare

As such, the plaintiff should compensate for the unexpected damages caused by the above traffic accident.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is an inappropriate lawsuit brought against the Plaintiff’s agreement on February 5, 199, and even if so determined, the causal relationship between the damage alleged by the Plaintiff and the said accident is nonexistent or the extinctive prescription is complete.

(c) judgment;

arrow