logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.17 2019나52678
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

Reasons

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, at around 06:40 on Nov. 27, 2018, the insured vehicle CD of the Plaintiff insured vehicle, and around 06:40 on Nov. 27, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the two lanes of the instant road, which is a three-lane line, in which the vehicle was a three-lane line, and the previous Defendant vehicle driven the two lanes of the instant road. The vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle by overtaking the vehicle. On the wind that the Defendant vehicle returned to the two-lanes at the middle without completing the alteration of the vehicle. The accident of this case, which conflicts with the part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s right-hand side and the part of the Defendant vehicle’s seat and the part of the criminal part. The amount of the insurance money paid, as follows:

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s accident in this case revealed that the Defendant’s vehicle is driving along the three-lanes after completing the change of the vehicle, and then the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving along the two-lanes normally. Since the Defendant’s vehicle was rapidly changing course to the two-lanes, it was caused by the wind that shocks the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s driver was not in time and space, and the accident in this case was caused by the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. The instant accident is an accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle moved to a three-lane and returned to a two-lane without completing the entry into the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was subsequently driven was contacted while overtaking the Defendant vehicle without speed, and thus, it is safe to maintain a sufficient distance when the previous vehicle is intended to move to a next lane by the Plaintiff’s driver.

arrow