logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.19 2016가단5302857
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,958,802 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 9, 2015 to July 19, 2019.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On December 8, 2015, C: (a) around 21:20 on December 21, 2015, attached Table 1. D C is the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

) In order to enter E from E to E after having entered the F apartment complex in E, E, the Plaintiff did not see the Plaintiff on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle while making a U-turn on the road in the complex, and did not see the Plaintiff on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and shocked the Plaintiff on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle by negligence (hereinafter the above traffic accident is referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as a pelvise at the bottom of the pelvis, accompanied by the pelvise, due to the instant accident, and received non-cerebral steves and lavesing, etc. on December 9, 2015.

3) The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. Attached 1. The place where the instant traffic accident occurred, such as the accident site map, is not a passage in the apartment complex, but a passage in the apartment complex, and even if the vehicles entering the apartment complex change the direction for moving into each Dong, the Plaintiff failed to carefully examine the direction of the Defendant vehicle. The Plaintiff’s negligence seems to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the instant damage. Therefore, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 95% in consideration of such fact.

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, in principle, be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1.

arrow