logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단7527 (1)
채무부존재확인
Text

1. On October 18, 2016, the traffic accident occurred between C and D vehicles on the roads located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seocho-gu at around 10:49.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the driver of C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor is the insurer who entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is the driver of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on October 18, 2016, and proceeded along the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Seocho-gu road along the two-lanes of the eropic road from the erode distance to the three-lanes of the foregoing road, and there was a traffic accident where the two-lanes of the Defendant vehicle changed from the two-lanes to the three-lanes of the Plaintiff vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle are shocked.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff did not have a liability to compensate for damages against the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's negligence.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment, the above facts of recognition, and the entire arguments, the accident of this case occurred in the process of changing the vehicle vehicle rapidly into the three-lanes where the plaintiff vehicle was in motion to enter the two-lanes where the two-lanes of the above road are located on the front bank, and thus, it is deemed that the accident of this case occurred in the process of changing the vehicle vehicle rapidly to the three-lanes where the plaintiff vehicle was in the front bank, and as long as the defendant

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow