(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.12 2015가단5126285

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 2017.05.12 2015가단5126285

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 905,203,637 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 9, 2014 to May 12, 2017.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On January 9, 2014, B (“Defendant”) around 08:16, January 9, 2014

2) On the other hand, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s head part of the Plaintiff’s head crossinging the crosswalk from the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the left side according to the stop signal, while driving the Defendant’s head part of the front door of the Defendant’s vehicle, having the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as blood transfusion, etc. in the two parts of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement in relation to the Defendant’s motor vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant who is a mutual aid business operator is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

C. Whether to limit liability or not, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was negligent by reporting only the signal of the passenger crossing to a pedestrian signal. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s claim on the limitation of liability is rejected on the premise that the Plaintiff was a pedestrian signal, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged as follows: (a) the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle confirmed that the vehicle signal had already been changed to a stop signal and entered the intersection; (b) the point where the Plaintiff was shocked is the beginning of the crosswalk; and (c) the distance from the entrance to the crosswalk is considerable from the intersection to the crosswalk.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item in the separate list of damages calculation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be monthly.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.17 2016가단5195066

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.04 2015나31661

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.02 2013가단36272

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.11.15 2016가단35870

-인천지방법원 2018.06.26 2014가단255830 (1)