logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나42209
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is each insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 14:05 on February 12, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle followed the Plaintiff’s vehicle at a Twit-type Intersection near the Seocho-gu Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu, the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was bypassing from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked.

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

On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 469,700 as insurance money for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence or video evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The crossing of this case is a Twit-type intersection where traffic is not controlled by signal apparatus, and the plaintiff's vehicle left the intersection in order to yield the course to the front vehicle of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection of this case after confirming that the plaintiff's vehicle left the intersection. The accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant vehicle that violated the duty of front-way driving, the duty of safe driving, and the method of passage through the intersection. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 469,70 won and the damages for delay. 2) The accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, such as the plaintiff's vehicle's failure to verify the defendant's vehicle that is normally by the preceding vehicle, and the driver of the defendant's vehicle could not expect that the plaintiff's vehicle will move back at the time of the accident of this case.

B. The following circumstances, namely, drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses, are acknowledged as a whole in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the normal meaning of other motor vehicles and riders of horses.

arrow