beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD on March 19, 2019 at the time of the accident and around 11:43, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of the shooting distance collision on the back side of the south-gu E apartment near the port at the port of port, the vehicle passed through the shooting distance without discovering the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the shooting distance on the left side of the running direction, and the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the front part of the Defendant vehicle were shocked. On May 13, 2019, the payment of the insurance money was 13,696,00,000 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (based on recognition) (based on recognition), there is no dispute, Gap’s 1,3,5,6,8, and evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including numbers) and images, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident, despite the existence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the intersection, is due to the Plaintiff’s negligence by neglecting his/her duty of temporary suspension and having entered the intersection as is, and the Defendant’s driver’s exclusive right of passage is recognized. Even if not, the Plaintiff’s fault on the instant accident ought to be recognized as at least 70%.
B. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is not only bound but also did not perform his duty of care in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but also did not exercise his duty of care in temporary suspension. Thus, in calculating the rate of negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident, the above negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver should be considered.
3. Determination
A. According to the facts found in the above basic facts, and each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s driver did not temporarily stop despite the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle could have been discovered at the time of entering a long distance where no signal is available and no traffic is controlled. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s driver is maintaining a considerable speed.