beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.07.17 2017나38400

손해배상(자)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, and 5, and 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):

The defendant is a corporation established on May 8, 1992 with the aim of contributing to the sound development of chartered bus transportation business and the promotion of common interests by actively promoting the public interest and government policy projects and by publicly announcing the cooperative system among members.

B. At around 16:30 on September 7, 2015, B driven a DNA tourist bus, the insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and reached the 575 ambrotoon venture in the city of Ansan-si in the city of Ansan-si from the 8th floor of the city of Ansan-si to the Silsan-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Plaintiff was running a bicycle in the vicinity of the city.

C. The Defendant’s vehicle, after making a left turn at the above intersection, proceeds rhym from the first line to the second line. The Plaintiff’s bicycle kym on the edge of the road between the second line and India, which was getting down at the bed delivery and the second line and India, was moved back to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, as indicated in the attached traffic accident status.

Due to the above drilling, the Plaintiff was in transit with the above bicycle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the dysopic disease No. 12 weeks of disease, 4-5 pump fever, cryp fever, cryposis, scarlet, scarlet, and tension, which require approximately 12 weeks of treatment.

E. From September 7, 2015 to October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the “F Hospital” located in Ansan-gu E.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was working as the Plaintiff’s questionnaire, was on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, having changed the lane from the first lane to the second lane without viewing the bicycle being driven by the Plaintiff, while driving a bicycle normally outside the second lane.