logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.04 2019나8480
구상금
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. At the time of the instant accident, at around 21:05 on June 29, 2018 at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of collision with the Fcafeteria in front of the cafeteria located in Daegu-gun, at the time of the instant accident, entered the said private-distance intersection by straighting the said private-distance intersection from G convenience point to H H. However, the Defendant vehicle entered the said private-distance intersection from G convenience point to the front side of the Defendant vehicle at the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle to turn the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle to the G convenience point (hereinafter “instant accident”). However, the Defendant vehicle’s payment amount of the insurance money to the repair business on July 2, 2018 at the cost of the repair business of the Plaintiff vehicle, including the Plaintiff’s 958,260,000,000 won of the insurance money to be paid in KRW 20,000,000 [Recognition grounds] of dispute, the Plaintiff’s number Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 11 through 31 or 31.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence as follows: ① the intersection in which the instant accident occurred, namely, the intersection where the traffic control by signal, etc. is not carried out, is the road where the central line is installed at the G convenience point where the Plaintiff’s vehicle is located, while the H surface road at the International Burial Zone where the Defendant’s vehicle is in progress, is an alleyway where the above private-distance intersection road is located at the International Burial Zone where the main line is not installed, and even if the width of the road is similar, the road where the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs can be deemed as the passage of the road where the Defendant’s vehicle runs. ② As such, the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle has a priority in passage on the Defendant’s vehicle where the left turn to the left pursuant to Article 26(2) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act.

arrow