손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
1. The Plaintiff is the husband of D, the owner of C-wheeled Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to E-ro vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 17:50, and passed the intersection from G middle school room to H apartment room. However, at the time of the Defendant’s moving the said intersection, the Plaintiff was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and driving the said intersection at the ethical branch from J-section to J-section. However, the Plaintiff’s front part of the part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered injuries to each of the following marries, scarcitys, scarcitys, and scarkes, scarkes, scarkes, knives, knives, knives, and knives, which require approximately two weeks’ treatment.
The above intersection is a place where no signal, etc. is installed, and at the time of the accident of this case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection first than the Defendant’s vehicle.
At the time of the accident of this case, each direction of the two vehicles, the point of collision, the conflict attitude, the side of the vehicle, etc. are indicated in the approximate attached Form.
The defendant paid 3,325,810 won as insurance money to the plaintiff.
D On November 19, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred to the Plaintiff the damage claim equivalent to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and notified the Defendant of the said transfer on the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 11 to 14, Eul evidence 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The occurrence of the liability for damages and the limitation thereof are deemed to have occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who entered the intersection without yielding the course to the plaintiff vehicle who first entered the intersection of this case (Article 26(1) of the Road Traffic Act). Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiff and D as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
(b).