logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2019나28507
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants and the assertion in the first instance trial do not differ significantly, and even based on the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence submitted in this court, the first instance judgment seems legitimate.

B. Therefore, the reasoning for the statement in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of Article 4

2. Additional determination

A. The allegation that the accident in this case occurred not only due to the driver's negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, but also due to the driver's negligence of the defendant vehicle, the degree of shock of the accident in this case is reduced to 0.5 to 0.6 times, and the degree of shock of the accident in this case is reduced to 40 to 50%, and the illegal parking of the defendant 2 vehicle contributed to the death or injury of the victims. In light of the fact that the driver's negligence in violation of the limited speed of the driver, the driver's negligence in violation of the illegal parking of the defendant 2 vehicle, and the driver's negligence in the illegal parking of the defendant 2 vehicle affected the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of the damage.

B. Unless there are special circumstances, the driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by one signal, etc., is sufficient to observe traffic regulations and to believe that other vehicles are believed to take appropriate measures to avoid collision. There is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of accidents in advance, as it is anticipated that other vehicles violate the signal and are driving across one’s course, or are expected to drive along one’s own course, and even if the vehicle is a driver of a vehicle driving in compliance with the signal, it is already entering the intersection.

arrow