beta
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 entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s B M&A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s car”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D’s car owned by C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).
B. At around 19:20 on March 1, 2012, C, driving the Defendant vehicle, and passing the private-distance intersection near the front bank of Kimpo-si, Gopo-si, Gopo-si along the two-lanes of the two-lane road from the front bank of Kimpo-si to the front bank of Kimpo-si. On the basis of the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle driving, C, the said intersection, which passed the above intersection, to the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane road on the left side of the Defendant vehicle (on the left side of the Olympic road, from the rear bank as the cargo terminal), was pushed the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front part of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle was pushed ahead with the traffic signal line in front of the Plaintiff’s road on the road.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Although signal lights were installed on the above shooting distance, only yellow light was operated at the time of the instant accident. D.
By January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,869,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 3 and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned. The accident of this case is that the plaintiff's vehicle, who was entering the intersection and was traveling in the vicinity by considering the situation of traffic around the intersection, has almost been absent from the intersection immediately before the intersection, and the defendant's vehicle that entered the intersection in the speed of overwork is not at the speed.