logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.17 2019나54872
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs of appeal shall be individually considered.

Reasons

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD (hereinafter “instant road”)’s collision situation on July 2, 2018 near the E-Sinnam-si (hereinafter “the instant road”) around the 6nd line of the instant road, where the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the five lanes among the instant road, which is one of the 6nd lines, and the vehicle was changed to the three lanes, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the three lanes among the instant road was discovered, and the vehicle stopped on the three lanes and the four-lane boundary line between the 3rd and the four-lane boundary line. While the Defendant vehicle proceeding along the 3rd and the four-lane boundary line of the Defendant vehicle, the instant accident occurred, following the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s repair cost, 577,700 won for the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost, the 200th 10th 200 won for the Plaintiff’s automobile and the 20th 160th 200.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 5 evidence, Eul's 1 to 5 evidence (including branch numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. While the Plaintiff’s instant accident stops without starting a change of lane within the four-lane of the instant road, the Defendant’s vehicle is running along the three-lanes, and the instant accident occurred by the winding the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving in the four-lanes. Therefore, the instant accident occurred by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. Although the accident of this case must have secured the safety distance and changed the vehicle line in one way, the accident of this case is caused by the wind that is accelerated from the five lanes to the three lanes on the road of this case. The defendant's vehicle does not run across the three-lane boundary line with the four-lane boundary line, and the plaintiff's vehicle also runs across the three-lane boundary line.

arrow