logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나63346
부당이득금 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 16:00 on January 26, 2017 at the time of the insured vehicle A, the insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) driven by the Defendant’s insured vehicle (only “Defendant vehicle”) following the Busan-dong Busan-dong M&D at the location of Busan-dong M&D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) entered the right-hand space of the Defendant vehicle. The Defendant vehicle, without being aware of the Plaintiff vehicle’s entry, went out of the alley and went out of the alley, so that the upper right-hand space of the vehicle and the front corner portion of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat were paid insurance money of KRW 1,590,00,00, and KRW 318,590,000, the self-paid share of the insured vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat x KRW 1,590,000, applied for the deliberation of the damage amount x 4000,4005,605.

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after paying the amount determined for deliberation and resolution to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In regard to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred solely by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident competes with the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s driver’s negligence, and that the Defendant’s liability ratio does not exceed the percentage determined by the deliberation and resolution decision.

All the circumstances, such as the background of the accident, the degree of conflict and shock revealed in the above facts of recognition, in particular, the location of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle indicated in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, and the vehicle of this case.

arrow