logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.06.07 2017나64758
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 a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AK5 vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the manager of the roads (part of 5 lines on the sub-Gu national highways; hereinafter “instant roads”) located in the interesting household, such as the attached map.

B. The instant road is designated as an emergency runway, and only one lane is used for the traffic of the vehicle as follows, and the traffic of the vehicle is prohibited on the other lane.

(hereinafter referred to as “vehicle traffic-prohibited lane”. The PE forum has been set for identifying the lane between the lane in which vehicle traffic is permitted and the lane in which vehicle traffic is prohibited.

C. On April 9, 2013, around 21:45, the Plaintiff caused an accident of collision with the PE bank protection wall installed on a vehicle line with the prohibition of passage while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving the instant road into a permanent air area in the PE bank (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Plaintiff

Of the instant roads, the vehicle was traveling along the lane permitted for traffic, and entered the instant lane, resulting in the instant accident. However, only the PEdrum, which serves as a central separation zone, was installed at the place where the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the lane for traffic prohibition, and did not have a PEdrum for the identification of the tea.

On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,499,100 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above recognition of the damage compensation liability and the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant is a road manager of the instant road in order to ensure the safety of the vehicle ordinarily in accordance with the use of the road.

arrow