(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.13 2013가단289088

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.13 2013가단289088

손해배상(자)

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 284,374,808, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and each of the said money from May 12, 2013.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) E is a Finti Vehicle on May 12, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) around 02:16, 2013.

) A driver’s license and run a 1 lane between the four-lane 86.5km direction of the Young-dong Highway located at the port of the Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and the one-lane 86.5km away from the west-gu, Incheon, at a speed of at least 216 km per hour. A G driving car (hereinafter referred to as “victimd vehicle”) of G driving, the course of which has been changed to the rest area of the Maman-gu, and the one-lane course of which has been changed to the other.

3) The part on the right part of the Defendant’s back part was shocked with the left front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff A, who was on the back seat of the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered injury, such as external wounds and dystroke, external typosis, external cerebral typosis, mass pulmonary typosis, and pulmonary typosis, due to pulmonary typosis, etc.

3) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer that entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle. (c) The Plaintiff A’s fault is deemed to have been 15% since it was erroneous in failing to wear a safety labelling at the rear seat, and the damages therefrom have been expanded, and thus, the damage therefrom is deemed to have been incurred, and the Defendant’s liability is limited to 85% (the Defendant asserted the reduction of the number of passengers on the ground of his relative relationship between Plaintiff A and the driver, but the same is merely the same as the one on the part of the damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident. In light of various circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant asserted the reduction of the number of passengers on the ground of his relative relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff merely took the part on the damaged vehicle. Therefore, the above assertion cannot be accepted).

2. Scope of liability for damages.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.25 2015가단5240549

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.11 2016가단5033809

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2016가단5137688

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가단5075285

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.10 2015가단52556