logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.04 2018나64636 (1)
구상금
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. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD on April 14:20, 2018 at the time of the accident, and the situation of the collision due to the plaintiff's moving into the middle quarter of the Suambol-dong, Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, the head of the defendant's vehicle is moving into the fourth lane of the above outer cycle road, the four-lane, and in order to enter the road, while the vehicle changed the lane to enter the course, the driver's vehicle is driving into the fourth lane of the above outer cycle road, and 3,97,00 won (self-motor vehicle damage).

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 30:70, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 2,783,900 won.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s rapid change of course in close vicinity to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was entering the entrance route. However, the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was at fault, which violated the Defendant’s duty of safe driving by raising the speed, and thus, the Defendant’s fault ratio of the first instance judgment is reasonable.

B. The following circumstances recognized by the video in Gap evidence No. 5, and the driver of any motor vehicle is obliged not to change the course when it is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course of the motor vehicle, despite the duty not to change the course, the defendant's motor vehicle neglected it and attempted to change the lane unreasonably without securing a sufficient distance from the plaintiff's motor vehicle running in the route to change the course, and the plaintiff's motor vehicle driving in the route to change the lane.

arrow