logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018나61923
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. With respect to the Plaintiff’s C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s Vehicle”).

B. On October 21, 2017, around 13:05, around the Hancheon-si, Hancheon-si, a traffic accident occurred, where Plaintiff 1 stopped on the front side of the said road due to a vehicle collision, such as a summary on the site map of the vehicle, and as indicated in the separate sheet at the scene of the accident, the rear side of the said vehicle was shocked by Defendant 1.

C. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 2,415,800 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the shock of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 7, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the background leading up to the occurrence of the foregoing traffic accident, the location of the original and the Defendant vehicle at the time of the accident, and the degree of collision, etc., the driver of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the said traffic accident is deemed to have caused the said traffic accident that meets the duty of care to secure a safety distance by closely viewing the front side while neglecting the duty of care to secure a safety distance.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver on the ground that, while operating the Defendant’s vehicle in compliance with the speed limit provision, the Plaintiff’s vehicle could not avoid the said traffic accident due to the Plaintiff’s sudden stopping. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s negligence caused or

The Road Traffic Act provides that the driver of any motor vehicle in the same direction shall ensure the necessary distance to avoid any collision with the motor vehicle in front of the motor vehicle in front of the same direction even if the motor vehicle in front of the motor vehicle stops.

In light of the above provisions, the vehicle location before and after the above traffic accident and the part of the collision shall be considered comprehensively.

arrow