logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.07.15 2015나4980
손해배상
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B driven a C bus around 18:50 on October 18, 2013, while driving a bus in the direction of the land at a long-term intersection in the direction of the Dong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. During that process, the Plaintiff, a passenger of the bus who moved behind to sit in the seat of the bus, went beyond the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

On December 7, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by the Dental Medical Center that “it is necessary to provide treatment for about two weeks in the future as a result of intermittently causing pains on the right side and the left side and the left side of 3, 4, 5 knife caused by a traffic accident.”

The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Dental Medical Hospital from October 19, 2013 to October 28, 2013 due to the instant accident, and received outpatients from the above hospital, etc. until June 10, 2014.

C. The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement on the bus, and paid KRW 2,541,400 to the Plaintiff’s hospitalization and the Tongwon’s medical expenses incurred from the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the accident of this case is attributable to the operation of the bus of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case.

B. The defendant also asserts that the plaintiff's negligence should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages caused by the accident in this case, since the plaintiff's boarding and moving in a bus would go beyond the scope of his/her duty to pay attention to safety.

However, according to the above evidence, the accident of this case was stopped to board the plaintiff, who is a passenger, but is operated before the plaintiff, who is a passenger, was seated.

arrow