logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단31994
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,509,010 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 29, 2014 to August 21, 2015 for the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A with respect to automobiles B (1.4) owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is a mutual aid contractor who entered into a mutual aid agreement with B truck owned by the said company (17.5 tons; hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. A, around 15:10 on November 24, 201, around 201, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with two-lanes between the two-lanes in the direction of the Meart in the direction of the Meart in the direction of the Meart from the 656 ahead of the Cri-ri-ri-si, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do.

그런데 원고 차량이 불상의 이유로 갑자기 오른쪽 갓길 쪽으로 진행하면서 오른쪽 앞 범퍼 부분으로 갓길 인근의 주택 대문을 충격하였고, 이후 다시 튕기면서 마침 원고 차량의 뒤를 따라오던 D 운전의 피고 차량 오른쪽 앞 범퍼 모서리 부분과 충돌하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)가 발생하였다.

C. With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 18,910,640 in total to A during the period from December 28, 2011 to March 30, 2012, and KRW 1,063,310 in the amount agreed upon July 29, 2014, and KRW 4,463,400 in total as medical expenses from December 28, 201 to February 23, 2012, and KRW 3,500,00 in the amount agreed upon on February 21, 2014; KRW 6,818,700 in total as compensation for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 1,693,420 in the amount of compensation for the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, 10 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. First of all, the determination of the fault and ratio of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, as to the accident in this case, the existence and ratio of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle are separately examined, and the scope of the Defendant’s liability is changed.

(1) The plaintiff alleged by the parties violates the duty of safety distance to the driver of the defendant vehicle (D).

arrow