beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나80307

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On April 27, 2019, around 13:52 on April 27, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding three lanes among six lanes in the direction of the marketing distance in the Sinung-dong, Sinung-dong, Sungnam-si. In order to turn left at the same direction, the Defendant’s right-hand part of the vehicle, which changed its three-lane line from the same direction, was shocked into the left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On May 10, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,472,80,00 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 as to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, 13, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident, which occurred due to the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle did not operate in the direction light in the section where the change of the lane is prohibited, and the Plaintiff’s driver, who is a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving at a normal speed under normal signal, could not avoid an accident. Therefore, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff’s accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,472,800 won and damages for delay, excluding self-charges, out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s vehicle had been aware of the change in the course of the Defendant’s vehicle from a considerable distance prior to the occurrence of the instant accident due to the failure to perform its duties at the front of the week and the fault on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle. Therefore, the instant accident ought to be deemed to have occurred by the concurrence

3. Determination

A. It may be acknowledged by adding the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings to the facts acknowledged prior to the ratio of negligence.