logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.13 2019나72139
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the costs of appeal due to the participation.

Reasons

1. At the time of an accident requiring recognition, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff in relation to the insurance (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)’s insured vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 17:00 on April 13, 2019 at the time of the accident, the Defendant vehicle in the situation of a shooting distance collision, which was proceeding on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the left-hand side of the Defendant vehicle, in the case of the change from the two lanes of the 4th line in the above location to the one lane in the middle of the two lanes in the above location of the 4th line in the middle line of the 4th line in the above location, and the 200,000 won on the payment of the insurance proceeds of collision.

A. The following are the developments leading up to the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On May 17, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,123,00,000, after deducting KRW 200,000 of the self-paid charges, for damages, such as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's vehicle did not turn on the direction, etc. during the course change from the two-lanes to the one-lanes at the location of the accident in this case, and that it conflicts with the plaintiff's vehicle, which was in normal driving at the one-lanes, and that the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant that the insurance money paid by the

As to this, the defendant asserts that the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle, which neglected the duty of the previous week, was caused by concurrent competition.

B. (1) Determinations are as follows: (i) The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change its course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of change in the case of changing the course of the motor vehicle; and (ii) shall not change its course when it is intended to change its course (Article 18(3) of the Road Traffic Act).

arrow