beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.16 2016나72022

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

1...

Reasons

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

Plaintiff

On May 18, 2016, the vehicle runs along the two lanes (sections in front of the intersection) of two lanes (sections) of two parallels in two parallel distance, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yangpo-dong 4, a two-lane in two parallels, and entered the right three lanes (sections in straight line). On the other hand, the left side of the defendant vehicle, which was proceeding in the three-lane in the same direction, was shocked into the front part of the right side of the plaintiff vehicle.

By June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 935,760 to the medical expenses and damages incurred by Defendant vehicle C, who is the same passenger of the said accident.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred not only due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver, but also due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, who neglected the duty of front-time care and the duty of concession driving. The fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver appears to exceed 30%

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement from the Defendant amounting to KRW 280,728 (=935,760 x 30%) and damages for delay.

3. Determination of Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides, “When the driver of any motor vehicle intends to change course of the motor vehicle, it shall not change the course if it is likely to impede the normal traffic of another motor vehicle running in the direction to change the course of the motor vehicle.” The following circumstances are considered comprehensively taking into account the evidence and the entire purport of oral arguments, i.e., the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle is shocking the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle while driving a two-lane, which is the left-hand lane, while changing the three-lane to the three-lane, the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle of the motor vehicle,