beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.17 2016나71197

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a traffic police officer who has sent water to A at the accident site as seen below.

B. On July 15, 2016, around 07:30 on July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the yellow signal, etc. after reporting the yellow signal, etc. to the left at the intersection around Seongbuk-dong Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, the Seongbuk-gu, and at the intersection of the Seongbuk-gu, at the intersection of the Seongbuk-gu, while left-hand in the direction of a congested a longway. While the traffic police officer’s departure from the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle pursuant to the reception, the vehicle

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

On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 450,100 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the judgment, the above facts and the evidence revealed above, although the plaintiff's vehicle stopped a yellow signal such as traffic signal, the accident in this case sent a notice to the left-hand turn to the plaintiff vehicle without stopping the vehicle driving on the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle according to the normal signal such as traffic signal. Accordingly, it seems that the vehicle driving on the plaintiff's vehicle and driving on the right side are faced with the vehicle driving on the right side, and the defendant is liable for damages to the owner of the plaintiff's vehicle pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act.

However, the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, that is, even though the plaintiff's vehicle has a yellow signal, it seems that the police officer, who entered the stop line beyond the stop line, seems to have sent to the left rapidly to the left in order to prevent the congested traffic in the intersection.