손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,050,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 28, 2015 to April 5, 2016.
Basic Facts
The relevant Plaintiff is the owner of the B Ropland C-Wro vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-Wro”), and the Defendant is a corporation that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty C.
The Plaintiff’s spouse D, around March 27, 2015, operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 09:45, the first line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the village of Cheongyang-ri, Cheongyang-ri, North Korea, by driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 09:45.
At the time, in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the E-1 ton vehicle was in operation, and the F-learning vehicle driven by C (hereinafter “Defendant”) was in front of that vehicle.
However, in order for the Defendant’s vehicle to turn to the left on the left side of the running direction, the vehicle stopped at the wind to turn to the left, and the following behind the vehicle stopped rapidly, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the rear side of the vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was considerably damaged, and the Plaintiff scrapped the said vehicle.
【In the absence of dispute, the place where the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant accident occurred, as well as the left-hand turn, in which the center line of yellow-ray is installed, where the center line of yellow-ray, and the center line itself is prohibited, as well as the left-hand turn, from which the center line of yellow-ray is installed.
In addition, there was no factor that could interfere with the progress of the vehicle at the time of the accident, so it was difficult for the Plaintiff as a driver of the vehicle to predict that the preceding vehicle would stop on his own.
Nevertheless, since the accident of this case occurred at the wind that the defendant vehicle attempted to turn to the left, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the accident of this case as an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C.
The negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.