(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2012가단239260

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 2015.02.10 2012가단239260

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 2,00,000 for Plaintiff A, and KRW 1,00,00 for Plaintiff B and C, respectively; and (b) each of them.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) E is the FEXA car around January 31, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant”) around 04:15, 2012

) The Plaintiff A’s driver’s failure to perform his duty of front-time watch while driving along the four-lanes of the middle-lanes in the middle-lanes of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the Seoul East-dong, which is located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) and attempted to stop in the front side of the front side, due to the negligence of failing to perform his duty of front-time watch while driving along the fourth-lanes of the middle-lanes.

2) The lower part of the Defendant vehicle’s lower part is the front part of the Defendant vehicle, and the lower part of the Plaintiff incurred injury, such as a duplicating, cutting, damage, etc. of less than the closed part of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D is the Plaintiff’s sentence.

3) The defendant is an insurer which has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The defendant does not have dispute, and each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 14 (including paper numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The defendant asserts that since the accident of this case occurred by the plaintiff A's total negligence, the defendant is not liable for damages.

In light of the above evidence, E, while recognizing the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time, deemed the Defendant’s vehicle to be protruding in order to change the vehicle from the fourth-lane to the third-lane, and it is found that the Defendant’s vehicle did not attempt to stop and concealed the rear of the Plaintiff vehicle. According to the above recognized facts, E is deemed to have neglected the duty of front-time watch, and therefore, the Defendant’s allegation of exemption is without merit.

However, the plaintiff A also has a new wall on the expressway.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.25 2012가단282547

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2011가단247646

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2013가단58680

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2013가단56417

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.04.07 2019나32924