beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.04 2018나755

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 78,800 as to the Defendant and its related amount are annually from May 30, 2017 to July 4, 2018.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

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

B. On April 5, 2017, at around 16:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the course from the three-lanes to the two-lanes of the three-lanes located in the west-gu Cheong-gun, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, to the two-lanes, and then changed the course from the two-lanes to the one-lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle driven behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the same direction from the one-lane to the two-lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle driven behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the same direction to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 197,000 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video, and argument of the parties to the whole pleadings

A. While the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in progress while the change of the vehicle was completed, the Defendant’s vehicle was not at a speed and shocked behind the Plaintiff vehicle, so the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 197,00 won for indemnity equivalent to the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation of the insurer and damages for delay.

B. The instant accident occurred only due to the overall negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that violated the method of career change because the Defendant did not verify the vehicle driven in the same lane while changing course, and did not occur due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Judgment

According to Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, a driver shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change course.