(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.8.선고 2015가단5029247 판결

1. It is confirmed that the damages liability of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) due to a traffic accident stated in the attached Form does not exceed the money specified in paragraph 2 below.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 41,756,855 won with 5% interest per annum from August 31, 2016 to December 8, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining main claim and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s remaining counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively, in total, 1/3 of the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

Main Office: The number of others owned by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) due to a traffic accident listed in the attached Form.

In relation to interest expenses, the obligation to be paid by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) to the Defendant

I confirm that the existence does not exist.

Counterclaim: The Plaintiff’s counterclaim to the Defendant on August 23, 2016, as to KRW 113,513,711, and as to the Plaintiff’s counterclaim

The rate of 15% per annum from the day following the service of the application for change of claim and cause of claim to the day of complete payment.

D. The sum of the calculated amounts is paid.

Reasons

[Seed] The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together]

1. Basic facts

A. B On January 15, 2015: Around 10, around 18: Around 10, a private taxi (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) that is an insured vehicle of the Plaintiff, caused the accident that, while a string of the locking area was driven by a bypassing from the locking area to the sloping area, a three-lane of the 3-lane of the 4-lane driver’s license (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”) of the 3-lane driver’s license was driven by the string of the 4-lane driver’s license from the locking area to the sloping area.

B. At the time, Chapter â……… has been kept in the back seat of the Defendant vehicle and reported two other cases owned by the Defendant respectively.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Vehicle Insurance Co., Ltd. agreed to the negligence ratio of the instant traffic accident ② ② 80%, ③ 20%, and ③ 20%.

D. The Defendant is a professional researcher who leads to the music of the racing university as a professor and other teaching staff.

[Recognition of Fact-finding] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The defendant's assertion (1)

As a result of the instant traffic accident, one of the two other two parts listed on the Defendant’s vehicle fell into the rear seat floor, and thus, non-professionals were unable to discover and restore to the original state, and other parts of the part that cannot be restored to the original state were damaged. The damaged part was registered in the current Spanish Madrid in 1968, and is the highest class masters and other items of class, the market price of which exceeds KRW 100 million in Korea. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as a mutual aid business operator for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is obliged to pay the Defendant the Defendant’s damages due to the instant traffic accident, namely, the purchase price of KRW 88,513,71 at the time of the Defendant’s purchase of the damaged or other parts, and the rent of KRW 25 million paid by the Defendant while leasing other parts to the Defendant on a yearly basis after the instant traffic accident. (2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is asserted by the Plaintiff.

First, there is no objective evidence to the effect that other damages were destroyed, and even if they were destroyed, there is no evidence to the effect that they were destroyed by the instant traffic accident.

Second, the fact that high-priced value equivalent to KRW 100 million is lost on the rear seat of a vehicle driving on the road constitutes special damage, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is not responsible for the loss in light of the fact that he was unaware of this fact at the time of the accident and was not aware of it.

Third, in light of the fact that the defendant himself claims that the above others are increasing value as made by Spanish Madrid in 1968, the above others fall under the â…………………………â………………………………ââ or â…………â……………………ââ………ââ………âââ………ââââ………………………………ââ being a case where the above others are reported to the rear seat of the defendant's vehicle, and thus,

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether the instant traffic accident was damaged

갑 제6호증의 1, 2, 을 제2호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제22호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉, ① 장③③이 이 사건 교통사고 후 즉시 현장에서 원고 소속 직원에게 뒷좌석 바닥으로 떨어진 기타 ( 기타명 아르캉 헬 페르난데스, 이하 ' 이 사건 기타 ' 라 한다 ) 에 관하여 파손 가능성을 언급하며 사진을 찍어 둔 점, ② 장③③이 이 사건 교통사고를 유발하였다고 볼 만한 정황도, 이 사건 교통사고를 기화로 이 사건 기타를 일부러 파손할 만한 동기도 찾기 어려운 점, ③ 이 사건 교통사고 이전에 이 사건 기타가 이미 파손되어 있었다고 볼 만한 아무런 자료나 정황도 찾아 볼 수 없는 점, ④ 기타 제작 · 수리 전문가인 서▣▣이 이 사건 기타가 파손되었음을 확인해 주고 있는데, 서민석이 허위의 진술을 할 아무런 이유가 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 교통사고로 인하여 이 사건 기타가 파손되었다고 봄이 상당하다 .

(2) Determination as to whether the case constitutes a special damage

In general, carrying or transporting personal goods on a vehicle regardless of the value of the goods, and in the event of an accident involving a vehicle, it can be sufficiently expected by the general public that the goods may be destroyed along with them as ordinary attention. Therefore, the instant case and other damages caused by the instant traffic accident cannot be deemed as special damages. The determination as to whether the instant accident constitutes an curios or possession goods

According to Gap evidence No. 9, the plaintiff's mutual aid agreement does not cover "any damage arising from other's paintings, curios, sculptures, other art works, and the clothes or personal effects of passengers and passengers," and "any damage arising from the possessions caused by the loss or theft of passengers and passengers," but it can be acknowledged that the damaged personal effects are compensated for within the limit of two million won per person per victim.

However, as to whether the instant case and other items constitute curios, even though the instant case and other items are produced in Spanish in Spain in 1968 and registered in world master crafts and other items, in case of the Defendant, who is a professional producer of the instant case, the value of use is more than the value of the collection as being used without distinction from the essential items, and the goods that can be replaced by the goods that can be distributed to related owners, such as the Defendant, can be seen as being able to find. In light of the fact that it is reasonable to consider the circumstances where it is difficult to compute the objective value due to the subjective and abstract method of valuation of curios, the purport of excluding curios is to consider the circumstances where it is difficult to compute the value of the curios. In light of the above, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, a professional producer, the instant case and other items that can be considered as an essential musical machine and has long value as it has long and high time, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant items stipulated in the said mutual aid clause.

Next, according to the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments, with respect to the definition of the belongings, "personal effects" means cash, securities, wallet, penet, kacker, handbook, handbook, precious metals, and other similar articles held by the person in ordinary possession. Personal effects refer to the goods held in addition to personal effects, such as mobile phones, streetbook, camping, camera, camera, CD flag, MP3, MP3, tape recorder, electronic book, electronic book, digital book, portable radio, handbag, document book, golf book, etc., which are not included in the good listed in the examples of the first possession, and the maximum amount of compensation for the damaged belongings are likely to exist in general, but the amount of compensation for the damaged belongings is not expected to be large, and the amount of compensation can not be determined in light of the reasonable and uniform standard terms and conditions to reduce the amount of compensation and to determine the fair and uniform amount of compensation for the above damaged article.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate the Defendant for damages due to the instant case or other damages.

A. According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 3, and 3-1 through 4 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 3-2, 8-2, 9-1, 2, 3-2, 10-2, 11, 12-2, 16, 17, 17-2, and 23 of the evidence Nos. 10-2, 2, 3, 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, 10-3, 10-2, 10-3, 10-2, 10-2, 10-2, 10-3, 100, 100-2, 10-2, 100,000,000-2,000,000-2,000,000

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 88,513,711 as damages. (2) Rent

From the traffic accident of this case to August 1, 2016 after the traffic accident of this case, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 25 million from the rent paid by the Defendant for the lease of other parts for the annual conference. However, in case where the goods are destroyed by a tort and the exchange price is compensated for, the price includes the benefits that may be gained by the ordinary use of and benefit from the goods, and the profits that can be gained by the ordinary use of and benefit from the goods can not be separately claimed for rent for the goods other than the reduced exchange price (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da5150, Jul. 12, 1991). Accordingly, the above claim is not accepted, since the deduction is based on the evidence No. 23, the other remaining value as of this case can be recognized as the fact that there is five million won.

B. Limitation on liability

In light of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of evidence Nos. 2-1, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken account of the entire arguments, the following circumstances, namely, a long-term open space bad itself, may be easily damaged to shock, and further, Hadices stored in this case and other similar cases are also produced as the instant other cases, and are vulnerable to external shock due to insufficient shock, but they are vulnerable to external shock, but they are operated with 20% of the damage caused by the instant traffic accident without any specific safety measures, such as fixing high-priced case and other cases as a safety labelling, and the occurrence of the instant traffic accident was at fault on the back seat. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s negligence affected the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant traffic accident, and other overall circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, the negligence on the part of the Defendant shall be determined as 50% of the damage caused by the instant traffic accident.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant 41, 756, 855 won [83, 513, 711 won (88, 513, 711 won - 5 million won) X50%, and damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment] and as sought by the Defendant on August 23, 2016.

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, in relation to the other repair costs of this case due to the traffic accident of this case, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant does not exceed the above-mentioned money, and as long as the Defendant contests this, the benefit of confirmation is recognized.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's principal claim and the defendant's counterclaim are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges

Name of judge Class;

Site of separate sheet

A person shall be appointed.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

참조판례

-대법원 1991. 7. 12. 선고 91다5150 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2015가단5029247

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.02 2013나43641

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.07 2016나85233

-서울서부지방법원 2016.10.18 2016가단16538

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.08 2014나57401