beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나34072

구상금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On October 3, 2016, around 15:40 on October 3, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding one lane from among the fourth line roads above the Han River-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle waiting to enter the road from the U.S. section on the left side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction to the road, and attempted to make a U.S., the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear side of the left side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff spent KRW 7,830,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance proceeds in relation to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred by negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in proceeding with the Defendant’s vehicle without sufficiently emphasizing the front in the U.S. section where the signal was not installed, even though it was possible to see or recognize the U.S. vehicle.

Since the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is driving along the vehicle that entered the road above, the responsibility of the instant accident is on the side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

3. Determination

A. In light of the above-mentioned facts and the evidence admitted as above, the accident of this case should have entered the lane in a safe way without impeding the passage of vehicles on the road, but it should have entered the lane, without due care, by taking into account the situation of surrounding vehicles, and by the side of the defendant's vehicle entering the road in a dangerous way.