beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,447,136 to Plaintiff A, as well as 5% per annum from December 29, 2017 to January 23, 2019, respectively.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (i) Plaintiff A is the owner of Dbenz 25.5 tons dump trucks (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)
B around 15:30 on December 29, 2017, Plaintiff B, while driving the Plaintiff’s front road from the right side of the bridge to drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle, he was driving the Defendant’s front road on the booming side from the right side of the bridge, and the Defendant’s front line in the same direction, even though the center line of the yellow do so, went beyond the center line of the yellow yellow real line (hereinafter “Defendant Track”), was driving in order to turn to the left part in order for Defendant Track to enter the farm located on the left side, while the Defendant Track was driving over the center line of the yellow real line to pass it (hereinafter “instant accident”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 7 evidence, Eul 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to Article 13(2) of the Road Traffic Act, motor vehicles and horses shall pass along the lane except as otherwise provided for in this Act or any order issued under this Act. According to the Central Line sign No. 601 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, three motor vehicles and horses are displaying the median line of a road, such as yellow solid, yellow, yellow, yellow and yellow yellow lines, and yellow yellow lines, and yellow solid lines, among which the yellow solid lines cannot go beyond the limits of motor vehicles.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1629 delivered on September 27, 1994). According to the above legal principles and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant caused the instant accident that conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was followed by the negligence that the Defendant entered the opposite vehicle to turn to the left at the section where the yellow-ray central line is installed.
As such, the defendant is due to the accident of this case.