logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.10 2018나68201
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

B. On January 5, 2018, around 16:49, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two lanes of 47-lane 126-gil, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, along the direction to the right side in order to change the course from the one lane to the two-lane. The Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the course before the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving along the two-lanes from the one lane on the two-lanes. In order to avoid a collision with the Defendant vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the process of rapid stop (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. E suffered injuries, such as the cage of cage fages, which require approximately five weeks of medical treatment due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 10,613,190 in total to E, from March 5, 2018 to July 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred to change the lane in an unreasonable manner, and thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle should calculate the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle as 40%, and the defendant is trying to change the lane more unreasonably.

It argues that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who was immediately suspended caused the negligence.

B. (1) The accident at issue with the determination of the percentage of negligence is the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was rapidly suspended without properly emphasizing the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle is driving along the first lane on the road at the front of the road and attempted to change the lanes into the first lane.

arrow