(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2019나44561

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 2020.01.10 2019나44561

구상금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. With respect to D vehicles owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 1, 2018, at around 17:00, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on a road that is one-lane in front of the Gmaart located in Gyeonggi-gu (hereinafter “instant EM”), and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, who was trying to turn to the left and enter the instant EM at the left.

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

As a result of the instant accident, the parts above the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, front side of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the parts above the Defendant’s vehicle were damaged. The Defendant deducted KRW 500,000 from the Defendant’s self-charges and paid KRW 9,180,000 on the part of the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle.

The defendant filed a petition with the committee for deliberation on the dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance with the content of seeking payment of the amount equivalent to the fault ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle among the above insurance money paid by the defendant. On February 11, 2019, the above deliberation committee deliberated on and decided that "50% of the liability ratio of the petitioner (the defendant), 50% of the respondent (the plaintiff), 4,590,000 won of the decision amount."

E. On February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff reserved an objection to the purport that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and once paid KRW 4,840,000 to the Defendant according to the said deliberation and resolution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including ad hoc number), Eul evidence 1, 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s vehicle driving along a road that is one-lane, and attempted to enter the instant marina line by breaking the central line, and at the time the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the time.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2019나44561

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.12 2017나27364

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나45359

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.25 2017나86387

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.13 2018나52794