beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.21 2018나63398

구상금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to Cone Star Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D bargaining Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

Around 15:30 on February 4, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle conflict with the lower part on the right part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the first line in the process of changing the second line from the second to the first lane on the road near the history distance of the bank in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). By March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,533,270 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s treatment expenses and agreed money due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Documents Nos. 1 through 9, 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the total negligence of Defendant vehicle, which did not take account of the surrounding traffic condition at the time of the change of the vehicle line, while the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay the total insurance amount of KRW 1,533,270 to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that there was negligence on a part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which did not yield the change of the vehicle line.

B. In the event that the driver of any motor vehicle intends to change course and it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change the course, he/she shall not change the course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In the case of the motor vehicle, the driver of any other motor vehicle is negligent in attempting to change the course without due care in the traffic situation of the motor vehicle of the plaintiff that is passing first because he/she neglected such duty and is negligent in attempting to change the course

In addition, the vehicle driving along the side lane and attempting to change the vehicle line is being raised in advance in preparation for the situation where the vehicle will see the rear side of the plaintiff vehicle.