(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.27 2017나75356

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 2018.03.27 2017나75356

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle B, at the location of August 31, 2016, the insured vehicle B, at the location of 20:15,000, applied for deliberation and mediation of the above accident against the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant’s deducted vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) entered the four lanes from the five lanes to the four lanes in the direction of the five lanes, and the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) entered the four lanes from the five lanes in the direction of the five lanes in the direction of the collision. However, on January 2, 2017, the committee for deliberation on the indemnity claim against the Plaintiff was determined to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,00,00 for the payment of the shock insurance proceeds to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle as KRW 2,554,00,00 of the self-paid insured vehicle, and the committee for deliberation on indemnity claim against the Plaintiff by considering the negligence ratio of the instant accident as 35,1601,616.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and sought the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay from the day following the final payment date.

First, we examine the argument that the negligence of the defendant vehicle is 100%.

In light of all the circumstances, such as the above facts of recognition and the background of the accident, the degree of conflict, and the degree of shock, it is reasonable to deem that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is negligent at least 30% of the accident of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is groundless.

The ratio of the defendant driver's liability to the accident of this case is from 0% to 70%.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.24 2017나89683

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.05 2018나13812

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나37870

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.04 2018나19995

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.03 2018나17180