(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.01 2016가단5308497

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 2017.06.01 2016가단5308497

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from August 27, 2016 to June 1, 2017 with respect to each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 22,939,613 and each of the said money.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) D, around 08:24, August 27, 2016, driven a taxi for rocketing business use (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and driven one lane out of the two-lanes front of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul, into the front part of the Defendant vehicle, a G crossing the crosswalk on the pedestrian red signal with the front part of the front part of the Defendant vehicle while driving the two-lanes of the two-lanes front of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul.

(2) Around 11:18 on the same day G was killed in an emergency room of the Synish Hospital at the Synish University on the same day.

(3) The Plaintiffs are children of G (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, each entry or video (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) of Gap 13 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

As to this, the defendant asserted that the driver of the defendant's vehicle had a big difficulty in front-roundinging and walking along the pedestrian color signal at the time of the accident, but according to the above evidence, if it was difficult to secure the view due to the sunlight as alleged by the defendant, the driver of the defendant's vehicle D should have taken measures to reduce the speed and secure the view, but the defendant's vehicle driver D was negligent in proceeding without reducing the speed. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

C. Limit of liability, however, the deceased may also be deemed to have committed an error of walking the crosswalk by a pedestrian-fluoring signal, so the defendant's liability shall be limited to 45% in consideration of the deceased's error.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, the following:

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2015가단5258748

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.25 2018가단17400

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.08 2016가단5211425

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.01 2018가단5173787

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단5112108