beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.26 2017나89188

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the “Restrictions on Liability” is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following in the last part of the “Restrictions on Liability,” and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

"Around this point, the Plaintiff did not change the two lanes from the three lanes to the two lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the two lanes to the three lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the three lanes to the three lanes, and the accident of this case occurred. However, the Defendant’s vehicle stops in the direction of one hour over the two lanes immediately after the accident. The Defendant’s vehicle stops in the direction of one hour on the basis of the final stop location and appearance. The point where the Defendant’s vehicle enters the three lanes after the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocks the centralized separation zone, and the Defendant’s vehicle proceeds in the two lanes before the shocks. Accordingly, if the Plaintiff’s vehicle continues to move from the two lanes as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the accident of this case could not occur if the Plaintiff’s vehicle continues to move from the first two lanes to the second two lanes, as the vehicle’s final vehicle analysis (No. 11-7) of the Road Traffic Accident at the time of the Plaintiff’s change to the three lanes from the point where the Plaintiff’s vehicle in this case occurred.