beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.24 2017가합18210

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company, a corporation whose purpose is insurance business, etc., concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company B and C with respect to the insured vehicles B and C with the insurance period from April 23, 2017 to April 23, 2018.

B. On May 2, 2017, at around 10:41, the Defendant, who driven the Ortob, changed the signal, etc. to yellow light at the intersection located in 101, a 101, from the Jinsung-si, and entered the intersection and made a left-hand turn. On the other hand, the Defendant, who driven the Ortob, caused an accident in the attached Form, where the B driving vehicle driven by right-hand in the same direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Defendant suffered injuries, such as a stoke stoke stoke stoke s to the right by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and fact-finding to the police station of the court of the fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff Company’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to negligence, such as the Defendant’s violation of signal signals, and did not bear liability for damages due to the Defendant’s negligence. Therefore, there is no obligation to pay insurance to the Defendant based on an insurance contract between the Plaintiff Company and B.

B. Not only the Defendant’s assertion but also B violates the duty of care, such as cross-section traffic and the violation of the duty of pre-section navigation, and the fault ratio B in the occurrence of the instant accident is 30%, and therefore, B is liable for damages under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the Plaintiff Company, the insurer of B, has the duty to pay insurance money

3. The fact that the Defendant, who was driving the Ortoba, was faced with the vehicle driven by the Plaintiff while entering the intersection and making a left-hand turn immediately after the signal, etc. was changed to the yellow signal. However, according to Article 4 of the Road Traffic Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the signal is a yellow light.