(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나55911



1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal



1. Basic facts

A. The parties concerned are the insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to the vehicle B, and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 18, 2015, around 14:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the traffic accident occurred, and the U.S. vehicle is a U.S. driver’s vehicle prior to the first lane near the M. M.S. broadcasting station in Sinpo-si and stopped, and the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to enter the same direction into one lane behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the same direction and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 720,000 to A, the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, with insurance proceeds, such as the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle should be recognized by the negligence of 10% since the plaintiff's vehicle is negligent because the plaintiff's vehicle did not properly examine the defendant's vehicle that intends to change the normal lane and did not drive the right of way.

B. According to the overall purport of the statement of No. 4 and the argument of the judgment, the committee for deliberation on indemnity charge set the rate of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle at 20:80.

However, the decision of the indemnity review committee has no effect of binding upon the court, and as seen earlier, the instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding with the second two vehicles behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to enter the front line of the Plaintiff’s own vehicle, and is operated on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.