logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.28 2020나51190
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On September 22, 2019, when the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle moves the two lanes of the two lanes in front of Incheon Strengthening Group E around 11:20, in the middle of the two lanes from the side of the side of the side of the side to the one lane, there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s right side side of the vehicle driving in the same direction as the one lane was shocked by the fronter of the Defendant’s left side of the vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On October 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,499,000 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 of his/her own share of expenses for repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff argued by the parties that the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle due to a shock accident that caused the plaintiff vehicle driving in the first lane while changing the vehicle into one lane in order to make an illegal internship from the two lanes to the opposite direction.

The argument is asserted.

In this regard, the defendant was negligent in 30% on the part of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle because the accident of this case occurred when the driver of the plaintiff vehicle knew that the vehicle of this case is changing the vehicle of this case.

The argument is asserted.

B. (1) Determinations are as follows: (a) The driver of any motor vehicle is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change when it is intended to change the course of the motor vehicle; and (b) the driver of any motor vehicle is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change when it is intended to change the course of the motor vehicle.

arrow