logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.16 2017나47434
손해배상(자)
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 Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 2, 2016, at around 21:15, the Defendant’s vehicle operated the Gyeong-gu, Busan, Busan, Busan, Busan, Busan, the two-lanes in the 12-lanes and passed the 6-lanes, and then changed the lanes into nine-lanes, which passed the 9-lanes on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle through the 9-lanes.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,290,000 (hereinafter “instant insurance proceeds”) as the repair cost for Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s change of multiple lanes at once by the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in force beyond control, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not at fault.

B. The main point of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s overwork and the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his duty of care, and thus, the percentage of the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault is appropriate.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the following facts are acknowledged: ① the place in which the instant accident occurred is 12-lanes in the following section via the expressway; ② the Defendant’s vehicle passed a six-lane Tolpt and changed the lane at one time to nine-lanes; ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle passing through the Tolpt and without observing the speed limit on the Helet section.

Each of the above facts.

arrow