logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.23 2018나50743
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Cases of indemnity between the insurers of vehicles involved in a traffic accident;

A. On January 18, 2018, the insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff vehicle”) Defendant Insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) entered four-lanes in order to avoid bus stopping on the front side while driving five-lanes, as shown in the attached Table 1, at the time of 16:25 on January 18, 2018.

Plaintiff

In order to avoid the defendant's vehicle entering the four-lanes of the above five-lanes of the road, the vehicle gets into the three-lanes while driving the three-lanes, and the G vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "victim vehicle") driving the three-lanes.

At the time when the Defendant’s vehicle leads to the direction above, the vehicle line is changed from the real line to the point line.

The plaintiff and the defendant did not conflict with each other.

Details of the payment of insurance proceeds on February 1, 2018, the sum of KRW 4,005,530 for damaged vehicles of KRW 288,460 for Plaintiffs 2,293,90 for the final payment

B. The instant accident, which judged negligence, did not properly examine the following vehicles, and was caused by the negligence of Defendant 1’s vehicle, changing the course to four lanes rapidly.

However, in light of the fact that there was no conflict between the plaintiff's vehicle driver and the defendant's vehicle, the driver could sufficiently avoid the accident due to continuous operation by examining the movement of the defendant's vehicle prior to the next lane before the accident in this case occurred, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle as 30:70.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's vehicle violated the vehicle line, but the point of accident is the section where the vehicle line is changed from the real line to the vehicle line, and it is not clear whether the vehicle has violated the vehicle line.

arrow