logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.19 2016나62519
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty A’s B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with the Defendant C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 24, 2013, around 16:20, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor, carried out a fall-off on the road while the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding to change the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane on the road, on the Pyeongtaek-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Cheong-do, Pung-do (hereinafter “instant road”), which is managed by the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor, and there was an accident that shocks the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding behind the Defendant’s vehicle on the first lane (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 316,800 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers)

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s total negligence, which caused the Plaintiff’s driver to shock the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the vehicle at high speed, while driving the vehicle in a safe manner by checking well the movement of the vehicle driving on the front side and the right side.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s previous negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, who failed to maintain the safety distance, or the negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver and the management of the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor, who neglected falling on the expressway, while the Defendant’s driver could not discover and avoid falling on the expressway in advance. The instant accident could not be predicted.

arrow