beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
Plaintiff
Around 08:05 on August 1, 2017, the vehicle was in progress in the direction of due diligence on the road in the TS Es (TS) 3 apartment complex in Yangju-si, TS (TS) Yang-si, the Defendant’s vehicle was in the direction of due diligence, and the Defendant’s vehicle entered the apartment complex after the apartment complex, and was in progress in the part adjacent to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the part of the Defendant’s vehicle was in front of the driver’s seat in front of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.
(2) On August 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,716,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as the insurance proceeds.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 4, each video of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion falls under a kind of intersection where the instant accident occurred, and the Defendant’s driver, who first entered the intersection, violated the duty to yield the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the duty to give prior attention to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and forced the Plaintiff’s vehicle by breaking the central line.
Therefore, the accident of this case is wholly caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.
B. The Defendant’s assertion is that all drivers of vehicles running across the apartment complex, which are an apartment complex, have the duty to yield the right to the vehicle to the greatest extent possible at the edge of the road by reducing or temporarily stopping the speed.
Plaintiff
Since the driver of a vehicle violates the above duty of safe driving, the defendant's liability should be limited within 50%.
C. We examine the judgment, the above facts of recognition, and the above facts.