(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.14 2015가단5177634

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 2017.04.14 2015가단5177634

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 168,528,431, and KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 2,50,000 to the plaintiff C and D respectively.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) E is a vehicle towing in F Pyeongtaek-ro (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at around 16:30 on April 13, 2012 at the level of 0.143% alcohol content in blood.

2) On the other hand, the driver of the vehicle driving the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle driving the vehicle driving the vehicle driving the Gpoter vehicle driven by the Plaintiff A driving the vehicle driving the vehicle at the front right part of the Defendant vehicle driving the vehicle driving the vehicle driving at the front right part of the vehicle driving the vehicle for about 20 weeks on the front left part of the vehicle driving the vehicle, without discovering the Gpoter vehicle driving the vehicle driving at the front right part of the vehicle driving the vehicle for about 20 weeks on the front left part of the vehicle for the vehicle driving the vehicle for the purpose of treating it (hereinafter “the accident of this case”).

(2) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are the children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s motor vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6, 13 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the Defendant, a mutual aid business operator, is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

C. The defendant's limitation of liability is alleged to the purport that since the plaintiff Gap was negligent in neglecting the duty of front-time care and safe driving at the time of the accident, it shall be taken into account. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant in light of the above circumstances is difficult to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's limitation of liability is rejected

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2015.08.13 2015고단1704

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.12.16 2014고정1508

-인천지방법원 2015.12.17 2015고단5571

-전주지방법원 2017.04.05 2015가단29604

-전주지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단33378