logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.01.29 2018가단508064
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 196,876,261 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 128,250,840 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them from April 3, 2015 to January 20, 202.

Reasons

D) On April 3, 2015, under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.079% on blood, around 00:15, when driving a network I (hereinafter referred to as “net”) crossing the left side of the vehicle without permission from the upper side of the vehicle, and driving the front road of the GF Institute located in Young-gun, Youngnam-gun at a speed of 70 km per hour between the four lanes from the H apartment room of the H apartment. At the same time, a driver is at night, at night, a driver is at night, and is negligent in his/her duty of care to reduce speed and safely drive by taking into account the front left side, and caused the death of the vehicle by shocking the front part of the vehicle and causing the death of the vehicle to exceed the upper side of the deceased on the same day as the first day of the vehicle, and making the driver to drive the vehicle on the upper side of 0:10 on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The deceased’s heir is the Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff B.

The defendant is an insurance company which has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the above sea-going vehicles.

[Ground of recognition] According to the above facts in Gap evidence Nos. 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the accident of this case occurred due to a mistake in violation of the duty of Jeonju as a driver of a sea-going vehicle while driving a sea-going vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff and the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case as insurer of the above sea-going vehicle.

In full view of the purport of the argument by the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the deceased was negligent in crossing the four-lanes of central separation cost at night, and that the deceased’s above mistake was caused by the instant accident. Therefore, the defendant’s liability is taken into account.

arrow