logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.24 2018나14907
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 insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 08:20 on October 17, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle and driving the vehicle at the top of a two-lane at the high distance under the front of the Defendant vehicle located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and moving the vehicle to the left left at a two-lane from the point where the left right is completed, while the driver changed the vehicle from the point where the left right is completed, the part of the back part of the left part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which completed the left left-hand turn according to the two-lanes of the said road, to the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,352,640 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, and 6's statements or images, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to gross dump trucks which the driver of the defendant vehicle operated in large area, but neglected his duty of care and thus, the change of the vehicle occurred due to gross negligence, and therefore, the part of the left back of the plaintiff vehicle was concealed. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the whole insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

(2) As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to concurrent negligence by which the plaintiff's vehicle did not pay attention to changing course while overtaking the defendant's vehicle while making left-hand turn.

B. (1) The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change its course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). (2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change its course.

arrow