logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.23 2020나6770
구상금
Text

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 10, 2019, around 08:30 on June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) obstructed the right-hand turn turn-on line while attempting to turn-on the Defendant’s vehicle, which attempted to turn-on to the said intersection from the Fridges of the Fridges Association located in E at the time; and (b) shocked the Defendant’s vehicle, which attempted to turn-on from the Fridges Association located in E to the said intersection.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 24, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,105,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (the cost was disposed of by full-time loss) as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence revealed prior to the error ratio, (i) at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in force at the time of the accident, and (ii) at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was faced with the median line before the right-hand turn begins and attempted to turn to the opposite line; and (iii) at the time of the accident in this case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to turn to the left at the right-hand turn, not to the right-hand turn, but to the right-hand turn at the right-hand turn; (iv) at the time of the accident in this case, the considerable part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was located on the opposite opposite line; and (iii) when all drivers of the vehicles intend to turn to the right-hand turn to the left at the intersection along the median line of the road (Article 25(2) of the Road Traffic Act); and (v) the driver of the vehicle going to the right-hand turn from the opposite side.

arrow