logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.07.19 2017가단104768
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 86,085,829 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from February 18, 2014 to July 19, 2019.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On February 18, 2014, around 21:19, Nonparty C driven a D private taxi (hereinafter “instant taxi”) at the two-lanes from the Dogs of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in the direction of the Dogs of the street, and immediately stops by changing the two-lanes to the three-lanes in order to have passengers board the instant taxi, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven at the three-lanes. As such, Nonparty C was able to avoid this, and thereby, the Plaintiff was injured by blood transfusion, brain spathry, and the two dus of the two dus of the instant taxi (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the Defendant is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to a mutual aid agreement on the instant taxi; or (b) evidence No. 2, No. 3-1, No. 3-3, and the purport of the entire oral argument as a whole.

B. In full view of the facts of recognition of the above facts and evidence Nos. 3-2, 3-4 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, 18-1 through 7 of the evidence No. 18, and 3-6 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, as a whole, C violated its duty of care to prevent any hindrance to the smooth flow of traffic by temporarily stopping the vehicle due to the alteration of the vehicle line, and thereby immediately stopping the vehicle due to the alteration of the vehicle line, and the error was caused by the instant accident and damage.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident as a mutual aid business operator for the taxi of this case.

C. However, the limitation of liability is limited to 90% of the Defendant’s liability by taking account of various circumstances recognized by the aforementioned evidence, including the fact that the Plaintiff appears to have been somewhat insufficient to perform the duty to avoid the accident by preparing for the immediate action, etc., when he/she considers it necessary.

arrow