logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.29 2020나50056
구상금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. From August 9, 2019, around 18:20, 1278, Sinsi-dong 1278, the Defendant’s vehicle, who was in the direction of the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was in the front-hand part of the front-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in the intersection.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On August 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,822,150 (excluding self-charges 455,000) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle entered the intersection where the instant accident occurred, and the driving way of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are almost the same in width, and thus the Defendant’s vehicle’s priority cannot be recognized. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability ratio in relation to the instant accident is 80%.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 1,457,720 won (i.e., KRW 1,822,150 x 0.8) paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and delay damages.

B. Determination 1 of the above facts and the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire arguments, namely, ① the location of the accident in this case is an intersection without signal, and the width of each road is almost the same. However, the road driven by the Defendant’s vehicle is a two-lane main road from which the center line is installed. On the other hand, the road driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a side road from which the center line is not installed. ② Article 26(3) of the Road Traffic Act does not regulate traffic.

arrow