구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
On September 25, 2018, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in the situation of the collision between the Ma E on September 11:15, 2018 at the time of the Plaintiff’s insurance-related accident and the Love Hospital Sho-gun, Young-gun (hereinafter “the instant shooting distance”), is proceeding directly in accordance with the direction of the passage of the instant shooting distance intersection. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,090,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on October 26, 2018, the part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, while the Defendant’s vehicle was in the non-protection line at the direction of the instant shooting. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,090,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on October 26, 2018
1. The details of the instant accident, the payment of insurance proceeds, etc. (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, the entries and images of subparagraphs A and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. Determination
A. In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver as 20:80.
1) The intersection of the instant private street is at a place where the transmission of the non-protective coordinates is allowed in the direction of the running of the Defendant vehicle, but the driver of the vehicle operating the non-protective coordinates shall make the left turn to the left so as not to obstruct the vehicle coming from the opposite side (attached Table 6ⅡⅡ 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act).
B. No. 329). However, since the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the right angled to the above private distance intersection, the Defendant’s driver, despite his duty to safely turn to the left so as not to obstruct the passage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with priority, neglected the front line, and neglected the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection from the opposite bank to the intersection, and found the Defendant’s driver’s fault appears to be the main cause of the instant accident. However, the Defendant’s fault appears to be the main cause of the instant accident.