logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.09.23 2019가단8187
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,739,239 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 22, 2019 to September 23, 2020.

Reasons

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. 1) Recognition 1) C is a Darburged vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B) On July 27, 2017, the Defendant is the driver of the vehicle, and the Defendant is the insurer that entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle from July 27, 2017 to July 27, 2018. (2) On April 5, 2018, C driving the Defendant’s vehicle on the three-distance road in front of the building in Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, U.S., and tried to turn back the Plaintiff’s crosswalk to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the closure of an ad hoc, which requires six weeks’ medical treatment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) All drivers of the motor vehicles shall temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk in order not to obstruct or endanger the crossing when pedestrians are travelling along the crosswalk;

(See Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act). According to the above facts, C did not temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk and caused the instant accident by negligence, which caused the negligence of neglecting the duty of care in front of the crosswalk. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, unless there are special circumstances, as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's negligence should be taken into account, not properly ascertaining whether a vehicle exists before crossing the road at the time of the accident.

In light of the fact that at the time of the instant accident, the driver of the Defendant Vehicle had more than half of the crosswalks, but is proceeding without temporarily stopping the vehicle, and the instant accident appears to have occurred.

arrow