logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.27 2014나53706
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 31, 2012, at around 16:43, C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving it along the two-lanes of the 40.8km away from the area of the Daejeon Metropolitan City Highway (Seoul Metropolitan City), the Plaintiff’s vehicle turned off the snowway, and the center separation zone on the left side is shocked into the fronter and the fronter part of the left part, and the Defendant’s vehicle, which followed the two-lanes along the same direction as the time string, e.g., the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). Due to the instant accident, C suffered from injuries, such as crym, urine, stoke, stoke, and stokes.

C. By October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid C insurance proceeds of KRW 17,970,510 in total, including KRW 9,270,510 in the instant case, and KRW 8,700,00 in the agreed amount (including KRW 3,085,00 in the aftermath treatment expenses).

On October 22, 2012, the committee for deliberation on disputes over reimbursement of automobile insurance set the negligence of the Plaintiff as 80% and decided to deliberate and coordinate it. The Defendant paid 3,594,100 won to the Plaintiff on November 15, 2013 (=17,970,510 won x 0.2) to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including each number in the case of additional number), Eul evidence No. 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's terms and conditions of mutual aid provide that when the amount of compensation to the victim under the mutual aid agreement is less than the amount of the victim's medical treatment relationship cost, the amount corresponding to the medical treatment relationship cost shall be paid. The medical treatment cost for the victim C in this case shall be 3,085.

arrow