logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나304158
구상금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A, around 17:10 on December 12, 2009, driven the B Cocoondo (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and proceeded one-lane of the three-lane roads in front of the half-top four-lane radius in the Seo-gu Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu (hereinafter “instant road”) from the bank of a private teaching institute in the Gu (hereinafter “the instant road”), and turned out a U.S. internship in the opposite direction.

B. As above, A, while having been a U-turn, shocked the front side of the D motorcycle that was left left at the right edge of the vehicle at the 2nd four-lanes of the Gu Dae-young Driving School pursuant to the left left turn.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) C.

Due to the instant accident, C, which has driven the said motorcycle, suffered injuries, such as damage to the number of water.

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 6 evidence, Eul 3, 4, and 5 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. The plaintiff's assertion-to-door distance is a place where accidents occur frequently due to the congestion of ordinary traffic. Thus, the defendant should have prepared a safe signal system by installing a auxiliary sign informing the time of permission for internships in the course of the course of the instant case, without installing such auxiliary sign, installed a Uton mark in an erroneous location, narrow the width of U-turns, and grant only one second time to change yellow signal. The accident in this case occurred in violation of the defendant's duty of care to observe in installing and managing the road of this case, cross-section signal, safety signs, etc. As such, the defendant violated the duty of care to observe in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act or Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, among the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to C, 54,69,760 won.

arrow