logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.14 2018나47297
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

B. On January 14, 2018, around 08:14, the accident occurred, following the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, at the front of the entrance of the 114-dong underground parking lot, Nam-gu, Incheon, Seodong-gu, Incheon.

C. On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,200,00 as agreed money to the winners of Defendant vehicle C, and KRW 528,340 as agreed money, and KRW 1,728,340 as agreed money to D’s medical expenses on February 14, 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The gist of the parties' assertion argues that the above accident is an accident caused by the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle, and that the negligence ratio of the defendant's vehicle is 20%, so the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 345,660 won (=1,728,340 won x 20%, and less than KRW 10).

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above accident is an accident caused exclusively by the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle.

3. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire records and pleadings, the foregoing accident is an accident caused by competition between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is at least 20%.

At the time of the above accident, the plaintiff's vehicle was parked in the above apartment parking zone, and the defendant's vehicle was in the middle of the underground parking lot through the lag exit.

(C) fact that there is no dispute;

Plaintiff

The vehicles shall be properly equipped with steering devices and brakes so as not to conflict with the vehicles that run along the roads in the above apartment.

arrow