(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.20 2018나30572

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 2018.11.20 2018나30572

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Bus”).

B. On August 1, 2017, at least 20:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed through the lane on the 1,2nd two lanes in the direction of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, along the 5nd two lanes in the direction of Kimpo-si, and proceeded along the 5nd two lanes in the direction of the driving of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and changed the 2nd two lanes from the said two lanes to the 4nd line at the end of the driving direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and then rapidly reduced the speed in the vicinity of the said road. Defendant bus passed the 5nd two lanes in the above 5nd direction of the 5nd two lanes in the direction of the Kimpo-si, while driving along the 5nd two lanes in the above 5nd two lanes in the direction of the Kimpo-si, and the vehicle was damaged by the Plaintiff’s driver’s injury in the front bus to avoid the collision with the Defendant’s injury.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

After the instant accident, until January 29, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 55,967,220 in the name of medical expenses, etc. for the injury suffered by 13 passengers of Defendant bus due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Items A 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who changed the bus line and neglected the duty of care for the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who changed the bus line, and the negligence of the driver of the defendant bus who discovered the plaintiff's vehicle late after the change of the bus line and that of the driver who operated the rapid operation of the bus. Thus, the defendant is 50% of the negligence ratio of

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나28837

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.14 2014나48599

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.28 2018나66205

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.22 2015나10034

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.26 2019나4259