logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.26 2019나19145
구상금
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Cases of indemnity between the insurers of vehicles involved in a traffic accident;

A. On August 4, 2018, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) of the Defendant Insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at the time of the accident, the Defendant’s vehicle operating on a three-lane road at the 164-lane-dong, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, and changed the course to a two-lane, while driving the vehicle at the same time. The Plaintiff’s vehicle following the two-lane-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

830,430 won for the payment of insurance proceeds on August 24, 2018

B. The first instance court ordered the Defendant to pay the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 32,172 ( = 830,430 x 0.4) and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from August 25, 2018 to November 30, 2018 and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

However, according to the video of No. 4-1 of the evidence No. 4, if the defendant vehicle stops while changing its course, it seems that the previous vehicle, prior to the one-lane, has the intention to avoid a conflict with the vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant vehicle without sufficient distance from the front vehicle as well as the rear vehicle. Thus, it should be deemed that the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle caused the accident in this case.

However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s driver also was driving the Defendant’s vehicle on a direction-setting, etc. for changing course at a one-lane, and thus, if he yielded the course or reduced the speed, the instant accident could have been prevented. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s driver should have been negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident.

As above, this case.

arrow