logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2015나33518
구상금
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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. The part of the court's ruling of the first instance is deleted from 4th to 17th, 4th, 4th, 15th to 17th, 4th, 4th, 40 of the court's decision of the first instance. The part that "the vehicle does not have a drick, even though it does not have a drick in the right side of the vehicle of this case, it does not fall down even if it goes out of the road," and each corresponding part is the same as the reasons for the court's decision

【The part of the decision of the court of first instance” 【2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment,” and 3.7 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be paid as follows.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that, although the road in this case is a dangerous section for the installation of a sudden kibro guide sign, a slick prevention facility, a street protection fence, etc. under the "Road Safety Facility Installation and Management Guidelines", the defendant, who is the installer and manager of the road in this case, neglected the road in this case without taking such measures, and thereby contributed to the occurrence of the accident and the expansion of damage in this case, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the insurance money paid to the plaintiff 49,65,158 (=248,325,788 x 20%) and damages for delay.

On the other hand, the defendant not only applied the "road safety facility installation and management guidelines" as a private road as a private road, but also had relative safety in proportion to such danger. The accident in this case occurred due to the whole negligence of the driver of the vehicle in this case who failed to properly operate the steering gear or brakes on the wind running under the influence of alcohol. Thus, the defendant is not liable to do so, and even if the defendant's responsibility is recognized, the plaintiff is not liable to do so.

arrow