logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.17 2020나33857
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On August 29, 2019, around 18:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in conflict with the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was a non-protective line on the opposite side while passing through two lanes on the water surface of the Daejeon Regional Meteorological Administration, along the opposite side.

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

On September 19, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 6,329,160, excluding the 500,000,00 of its own contributions at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances, i.e., vehicles that turn to the left in the area prior to the Non-Protection Coordinating Department, which are recognized by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments, should make a turn to the left early to the left, so as not to interfere with the vehicle from the opposite side in accordance with the vehicle proceeding signal (attached Table 6).

II. 3.2

See 329: Defendant vehicle should yield the course to the opposite straight-line vehicle running along a new line, but the opposite opposite vehicle cannot be confirmed by the Plaintiff vehicle parked in the two-lane, but the accident of this case occurred while driving in the non-protection line. On the other hand, Plaintiff vehicle driver as the driver of the vehicle stops several vehicles on the one-lane, which is the straight-lined vehicle in the same direction as the vehicle at the time, and thus, it is difficult to confirm the driving situation of the two-way vehicle, and thus, the traffic situation of the front-way bank is sufficient.

arrow