logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나53947
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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to DWS vehicles owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”).

B. On November 19, 2017, around 20:45, the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle were parked in the area of 3C-2 parking lots for the third floor in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

The defendant passed the shopping car in an empty space between his own vehicle and the plaintiff's vehicle, and left the shopping car in one hand to bring about to his own vehicle back, which conflict with the side of the plaintiff's vehicle's right side.

다. 당시 원고 차량에 탑승해 있던 사람이 뭔가 쭈욱 긁고 가는 소리를 듣고 즉시 차량 밖으로 나와 상황을 확인한 뒤 원고에 보험사고 접수를 하였다.

According to the on-site departure confirmation written by the Plaintiff’s staff G, at the time, the damage was anticipated to occur in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, penter, and POler, and the Defendant recognized only the part of the “ on-site departure confirmation.”

Since then, the Plaintiff paid 802,900 won on January 10, 2018, deducting KRW 200,000 of its own charges from the total of KRW 1,002,90,000, for repair expenses, such as 715,000,000 in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle where the damage was actually discovered and the part of the Plaintiff’s “cyber” and the part of the Plaintiff’s “cyberr.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, evidence 7-1, 2, each entry or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant damaged the plaintiff's vehicle due to the negligence of wrong learning of shopping car, so the owner of the plaintiff's vehicle shall compensate C for the loss equivalent to the repair cost.

In this regard, the Defendant did not take place the contact between shopping car and the Plaintiff’s vehicle itself, and even if so, the remainder, excluding KRW 14,700, out of the repair cost, is above the damaged part that occurred prior to the instant accident.

arrow