beta
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. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D’s visible vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract regarding D’s visible vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On March 27, 2018, around 19:05, a traffic accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s vehicle that changed the lane from three lanes to two lanes, such as the drug map in the attached Form to the accident site, and the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the lane from one lane to two lanes.
At the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident, the replacement of the plaintiff vehicle was a considerable part of the vehicle, while the defendant vehicle was entering the two-lane.
C. On April 11, 2018, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to the foregoing traffic accident, paid KRW 2,88,200, after deducting KRW 200,00 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from KRW 3,08,200.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 through 11, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle while changing the vehicle rapidly.
As such, since the above traffic accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above insurance proceeds of KRW 2,888,200 and the damages for delay.
B. The driver of a vehicle who is liable for damages shall be obliged not to impede the normal passage of other vehicles by closely examining the operating speed and distance between the other vehicles when changing the vehicle line. According to the above acknowledged facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the driver of the original and the Defendant vehicle neglected the above duty of care and caused the said traffic accident while changing the vehicle rapidly from the distance close to the other party.
As such, the above traffic accident.