logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.09 2017나67553
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On April 25, 2017, around 22:40, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the two-lanes in the Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, U.S., the front line of which is located. However, the Defendant’s vehicle entering the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the intersection from the intersection to the intersection of the intersection, without viewing the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as it is, while driving the vehicle into the intersection between the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving it toward the side side of the said intersection of the intersection of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the front line of the Plaintiff’s right side

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

On May 12, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 314,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each description or image of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant vehicle that entered the vehicle first in the intersection while entering the intersection or temporarily stops or enters the intersection at a rapid speed without saving the plaintiff vehicle, and thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and the damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle is responsible for the accident of this case (30%) since it was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to drive safely while driving in the intersection.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., the place where the instant accident occurred, is the two-lanes in the original form, and all vehicles entering the said intersection are driving along the intersection in the direction of visual opposition.

arrow