logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.25 2016가단5043233
손해배상(자)
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff A, on the 11:35th day of May 201, 2015, posted a bicycle to the lower part of the D Poter Cargo (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) of the Maju-ju C Driving (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) while driving a two-lane road, which is located in the 388west-gu, Schill-ri, Schill-ri, Schill-ri, Schill-ri, Schill-ri, Schill-ri, in the direction of a yellow-ri direction.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

As a result of the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as scarcityal damage.

C. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The key point of the party’s assertion is that: (a) Plaintiff A was under the influence of the bicycle going beyond the center line at the time of the instant accident; (b) Plaintiff A, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, was driving a kibway; and (c) Defendant C, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, was under the duty of care to conduct such a kibro, failing to perform such duty of care; and (d) Plaintiff A was under the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby failing to discover the Plaintiff A, thereby leading the Plaintiff to the lower part of the Defendant vehicle; and (c) Plaintiff A was under the duty of care to conduct such a duty of care; and (d) Plaintiff A was under the injury of Plaintiff A due to his failure to conduct a proper operation even thereafter, the Defendant asserted that the insurer of the Defendant vehicle is liable for compensation

In regard to this, the Defendant’s instant accident occurred by the unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company Company

arrow