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
purport.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On March 17, 2014, at around 04:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, along the four-lanes of the five-lane road located in Mapo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked from the front bank to the mapode in accordance with the four-lanes of the five-lane road in the Mapo-dong.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 10,720,000 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case caused the accident of this case where the plaintiff did not discover the defendant vehicle in advance and shock the plaintiff vehicle because the defendant vehicle was parked for a considerable period of time on the bridge where parking is prohibited under the Road Traffic Act, and did not take an accident prevention measure such as setting up a sign that enables identification of the defendant vehicle in the rear side while blocking two lanes, and installing a sign that enables identification of the defendant vehicle in the rear side. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4,28,00 won, which is equivalent to the above fault ratio of 10,720,000 won of the above insurance money, and damages for delay.
In regard to this, the Defendant erred by failing to perform the duty of front-time watch and the duty of safe driving while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, even though it was possible to sufficiently distinguish the Defendant’s vehicle because the lighting lights, etc., which are boomed in the vicinity of the instant accident site, could be easily identified.