logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.18 2020나41339
구상금
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 20:20 on February 1, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops in front of the F store located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu E in accordance with a new code. Around the course of proceeding under a new code, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Defendant’s vehicle, which attempted the intersection from the small road without a signal apparatus on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to cut off the intersection.

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

By March 14, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,659,740 (excluding KRW 200,000) as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 to 10; Eul evidence 1 and 2; Eul evidence 1 and 2; the gist of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following circumstances revealed in light of the evidence revealed prior to the determination on the percentage of negligence, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle entered the said intersection in a narrow channel where no signal is installed. In this case, the Defendant’s vehicle can enter the said intersection only while the Defendant’s walking signal on the left side of its driving direction reaches the said intersection; ② the Defendant’s walking signal at the said crosswalk was already on-off and off at the time of entering the said intersection; ③ the said pedestrian signal at the time of entering the said intersection; ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the said intersection normally in accordance with its straight signals; ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle was unable to find the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the said intersection in violation of the said signal due to another vehicle by the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and the occurrence of the instant accident and the location and collision level, etc. of each vehicle, in full view of the following circumstances.

arrow