(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017가단5017149

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 2017.11.29 2017가단5017149

손해배상(자)

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 242,048,960, Plaintiff B’s KRW 237,048,960, and each of the said money, the Defendant began on November 28, 2016.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) C is a Drocketing vehicle around 08:50 on November 28, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2) On December 1, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side did not discover “E” and the Defendant’s vehicle’s left-hand turn to the left-hand turn while driving a road without the front line of Samsung F&S apartment in front of 101, which is in front of the Daejeon U.S., from the front side of the said vehicle to the left-hand side, caused the Defendant’s death to the front left-hand side of the vehicle due to a dives of the heart, the heart and the inter-sponsing of the instant vehicle to the front left-hand side (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Defendant’s death to the front left-hand side of the said vehicle at around 07:55 on December 1, 2016 (hereinafter “E”).

(2) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4, 6 (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved families.

C. The Defendant asserts that liability should be limited inasmuch as the Deceased did not perform his/her duty of care in the operation of the vehicle by building a crosswalk without signal, etc., but the Defendant’s vehicle was shocking and sprinking the Deceased who sprinked to left the crosswalk to the right at the crosswalk to the extent that it is entirely difficult to predict according to the video of the evidence No. 2 of this case. In full view of the circumstances where it is difficult to view that the Deceased is not obliged to pay due attention to the vehicle’s progress, it is difficult to deem that there was any negligence on the Deceased.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2. Scope of liability for damages.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가단25974

-인천지방법원 2017.10.17 2014가단68425

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.28 2018가단5220058

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.16 2019가단5253178

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.26 2018가단5016891