본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.21 2016나39896

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the incidental costs of appeal.


1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Engines (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) driven by B, and the Defendant is the driver of D rocketing vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 17:55 on February 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driven the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the entrance of the Seoul Bridge Park Station, which is a zone where parking and stopping is prohibited; (b) checked the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the vehicle along the opposite lane after about 10 minutes after the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by another vehicle driving along the opposite lane after the lapse of 10 minutes after the instant accident.

The second accident is called ‘the second accident'.

(C) The Plaintiff’s repair cost of the instant accident and the instant secondary accident was KRW 5,95,854, but the Hyundai Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the instant secondary accident, paid KRW 1,354,00 out of the repair cost, excluding exemption, etc. on February 27, 2015. The Plaintiff paid KRW 4,354,00 out of the repair cost excluding exemption, etc. [based on recognition] without any dispute, Gap’s 1 through 19 (including household numbers and evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 10), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle, which was parked in excess of the central line, and sought a full payment of KRW 4,354,00,00 paid by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant is against the central line, and the defendant's vehicle discovered that the plaintiff's vehicle was parked over part of the vehicle in the course of the defendant vehicle.