logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.14 2016나75328
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The fact of recognition is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with B and C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the owner of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

On November 25, 2015, the defendant driving a vehicle of the defendant 22:20 on November 25, 2015, and driving the vehicle of the plaintiff 1, the left part of the vehicle of the plaintiff 1, which was straighted along the two lanes of the opposite road, was shocked into the right part of the defendant 1's right part in the course of driving the vehicle along the one lane connected to the other two lanes of the opposite road while driving the one lane between the opposite side and the opposite side of the opposite side of the road of the road of the city of Guro-gu, Seoul.

By February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 983,180 as the medical expenses for the Plaintiff’s driver F in the instant accident, and KRW 826,750 as the expenses for the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 13,79,930 as the expenses for the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 15,79,930 as the government’s compensation and insurance proceeds.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11 (including the number of each branch) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both of the plaintiffs asserted that the accident of this case occurred at the time when the plaintiff's vehicle was proceeding in a normal way among the four-lanes, but the defendant's vehicle was immediately moving into the two-lanes immediately after U.S., and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle cannot be said to have a duty of care to drive because it is anticipated that the defendant's vehicle will enter the de facto section where the change of the vehicle is not allowed. Thus, the accident is entirely attributable to the defendant's negligence, and the defendant's obligation to pay the compensation and the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as compensation for reimbursement.

In regard to this, the defendant did not discover the defendant's vehicle while driving the plaintiff's vehicle in an excessive manner, so the accident of this case occurred.

arrow