logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.04.19 2017나65492
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 204,520 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from February 2, 2017 to April 19, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with Aent Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into the automobile insurance contract with B Eth Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On January 22, 2017, around 08:57, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in contact with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding five-lanes from the right side to the right side, on the road near the Yungdong-dong, Youngdong-dong, Young-dong, Young-gu.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). (c)

The Plaintiff paid 815,800 won out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle 1,018,800 won for the instant accident, deducting 203,00 won for self-charges.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole theory, images and changes.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant vehicle shocking the plaintiff vehicle while driving a motor vehicle on the ice on the road without due care for safe driving.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the mistake of the plaintiff vehicle, and the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident is 90%.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 2 and 3, it is reasonable to view the instant accident to be 60% of the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle and the negligence of the Defendant vehicle, and 40% of the negligence of the Defendant vehicle.

(1) At the time of the instant accident, the road surface was ice for a long time after snowing.

(2) The Plaintiff’s vehicle interferes with the passage of Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding five lanes from the lane to the five lanes.

arrow