logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.20 2018나77731 (1)
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On November 13, 2017, at around 11:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the course from the two-lanes to the three-lanes on the left-hand (excluding bus exclusive lanes) of the five-lanes located near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building, and changed the course from the four-lanes to the three-lanes on the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,601,040 as insurance money after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The driver of a motor vehicle driving along a road shall comply with the instructions indicated by the traffic safety facilities (Article 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act); the driver of a motor vehicle shall not change the course of the motor vehicle at a place where a change of course is particularly prohibited with safety signs (Article 14(5) of the Road Traffic Act); and the driver shall not change the course when the change of course is likely to interfere with normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the change is intended (Article 19(3)2 of the Road Traffic Act). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by taking into account the aforementioned basic facts and the overall purport of arguments as a whole, as a whole, the evidence revealed in the foregoing facts and the arguments. In other words, the plaintiff's motor vehicle attempted to change the course in the real line in violation of a road sign restricting the change of course while the defendant's motor vehicle tried to complete the change of course in the real line, but the change of course in the motor vehicle was in a state of parking at the left left.

arrow