가. 인정 사실 1) 원고는 2018. 8. 7. 11:00 무렵 성남시 분당구 구미동 한국토지주택공사 앞 편도2차로 중 2차로에서 비상등을 켠 상태로 C 차량(이하 ‘원고 차량’이라 한다

2) On the other hand, D, while driving a vehicle on the same lane on the above road (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), has a conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that starts from the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle with the direction to the right side without turning on the direction, etc.

(3) The Plaintiff spent KRW 3,014,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 4) The Defendant is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

다. 책임의 제한 원고도 편도2차로의 2차로 모퉁이에서 비상등을 켠 상태로 차량을 정차하였다가 다시 운전할 경우 전후좌우를 주시할 의무가 있는데, 이를 위반한 잘못이 있고, 이런 잘못은 이 사건 사고 발생 및 손해 확대에 상당한 기여를 하였으므로 이를 참작하기로 하되, 변론에 나타난 여러 사정에 비추어 원고의 과실을 50%로 보고 피고의 책임을 50%로 제한한다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 3, 5, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. Recognizing the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle of KRW 1,507,00 corresponding to the Defendant’s fault ratio among KRW 3,014,000.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff suffered mental damage due to the accident of this case, and that the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages (3 million won as above).

The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 through 5 are alone.