beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,955,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 25, 2019 to August 2, 2019.
Reasons
On December 11, 2018 at the time when the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) D car (E ownership), F Vehicle of the F Vehicle of the F Vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “E ownership”), was left to the left from the J side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for a long-distance accident without an I restaurant address signal, etc. at H at the seat of the place of week No. 0:50, Dec. 11, 2018 - The Defendant vehicle turn to the right from the J side of the vehicle at the right side of the vehicle. The Defendant vehicle of the Plaintiff was in the middle of the accident in the right direction of the Yellow Sea at the right side of the Defendant vehicle in the front part of the vehicle of the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”). - At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant vehicle driver G was a driver of the Defendant vehicle at the speed of 65km alcohol concentration of KRW 0.130%, 309, 2005.1.
1. Facts of recognition (the circumstances, etc. of the accident of this case) 【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there exists no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 17, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The following circumstances acknowledged pursuant to the factual basis prior to the determination of the ratio of liability, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the private distance without signal lights, etc. at the time of the instant accident and was proceeding in the right-hand direction after the left-hand turn was completed; the Defendant’s driver, while driving the Defendant vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.130%, failed to perform the duty of left-hand turn at the time of the front-hand turn while driving the vehicle while driving the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.130%, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle could avoid the instant accident.
In full view of the fact that there was no evidence to prove that the accident of this case was negligent, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case was caused by the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.
B. The defendant's duty of reimbursement is followed.