logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.09 2016가단5268681
채무부존재확인
Text

1. On May 21, 2016, around 15:00, the Plaintiff’s Defendant is involved in a traffic accident that occurred near Songpa-gu Seoul.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the liability insurer of the B-wheeled Motor Vehicle (motor bicycle; hereinafter the plaintiff's vehicle) and the defendant is the insurer of the net C's non-life insurance.

B. Around 15:00 on May 21, 2016, when driving a bicycle and driving the two lanes of the three-lanes of the roads near Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A, the two-lanes of the three-lanes of the roads adjacent to Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, straight from the private distance of the locked Private Teaching Institutes, C reported the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by the direction from the right side of the driving direction to the right side of the Kacheon-gu,

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). The instant accident caused brain damage, etc. and died during treatment.

C. On October 31, 2016, the Defendant, as an insurer, paid a non-life insurance premium to C, and claimed for reimbursement of KRW 51,377,350 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s summary of the instant accident occurred by the total negligence of C, there is no Plaintiff’s liability for indemnity against the Defendant regarding the instant accident.

B. Even if the Defendant’s summary of the instant accident did not conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was under a sudden control in order to avoid a direct shock from the alley of the Saemaul market.

Therefore, since the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle provided the cause of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s liability for reimbursement against the Defendant exists.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 6, C's bicycle riding direction signal at the time of the accident in this case (hereinafter the defendant vehicle) was red signal, and when pedestrians start crossings on both sides of the crosswalks, when the defendant vehicle exceeds the stop line and the crossings go to the center around the intersection, C's Saemaeul market on the right side of the direction of the passage.

arrow