logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.02.09 2017나60039
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to the B ASEAN car owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is the Federation of Industrial Cooperatives which concluded a mutual aid agreement with respect to C Buses owned by Sam Young Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

B. Around 13:45 on October 11, 2016, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the road near F in the Gu E, and driving the center line illegally, changing the course to one lane immediately after entering the two-lane, and the Defendant bus was going straight ahead from the opposite lane (the first lane) to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. However, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the opposite side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle intrudes the center line, leading the Plaintiff’s vehicle to an illegal walk, while driving the direction toward the opposite side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant bus’s right side part was shocked.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case") and the degree of the occurrence of an accident is as shown in the attached Form (Evidence A 2).

On October 25, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of A, paid KRW 1,223,780 after deducting 305,00 of the Plaintiff’s self-charges from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, Gap evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff bus’s assertion (1) is a traffic accident caused by the Defendant bus’s unilateral negligence, inasmuch as the Plaintiff bus’s failure to perform such duty of care and continued to proceed beyond the median line, while continuing to go beyond the median line, and the Plaintiff bus’s course changed.

The insurer under the Commercial Act seeks to pay the amount equivalent to the repair cost by subrogation of the insurer.

(2) Defendant bus stops illegally one lane.

arrow