beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant C, which constitutes the following amount of payment:
Reasons
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
At the time of the accident, at around 20:49 on December 23, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of the collision on the three-lane road (hereinafter “instant road”) between the three-lanes in Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and the three-lanes in the two-lanes in the instant road at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was rapidly stopped while changing the three-lanes. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was rapidly stopped while changing its course to the three-lanes, and at the time of the accident, the Defendant Orala, who was located in the three-lanes in the instant road in the instant case at the time of the accident, was predicted the back part of the left back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
이러한 추돌로 인하여 피고 오토바이가 이 사건 도로 중 1차로로 튕겨 넘어지게 되었고, 이에 1차로로 진행하던 피해 차량과 피고 오토바이가 충돌하게 되었다
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” The amount of the insurance proceeds paid was physical damage which requires KRW 1,490,000 for the repair cost, and the mutual aid business operator for the damaged vehicle paid KRW 1,490,000 for the damaged vehicle. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,490,00 for the damaged vehicle to the mutual aid business operator on June 19, 2018 in accordance with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gaso38784, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,490,000 for the mutual aid business operator on June 19, 2018 (based on recognition) (Evidence 3) for the 1,490,00 for the damaged vehicle as the mutual aid business operator on June 19, 2018, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments
2. In the case of the instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff, even though part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was found to have been negligent, it was caused by the principal negligence that Defendant Oraba neglected the duty of ex officio care. In light of the circumstances of the instant accident, it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s driver and Defendant C, the Defendant Oraba driver, is 20:80.
Defendant B is the owner of Defendant Oraba, and Defendant C is the driver of Defendant Oraba, and the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.