beta
Text
1. The part against Defendant A in the judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded by this court, is as follows.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Csi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant A is the driver of D Oba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”) and the owner of the above Oba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).
B. At around 17:20 on November 15, 2014, Defendant A driving the Defendant Otoba and proceeding without stopping, even though the vehicle signal was changed from green to red at the crosswalk, which was located in the front of the So-gu So-gu So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called 363.
In the opposite direction, the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was a U-turn, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant Obama.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle started U-turn, even though the vehicle signal of the front bank was not changed from green to yellow light, even though the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk was not displayed. D.
By April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,333,580 as mutual-aid money for the medical expenses and agreed money of E, which he/she joined in the Defendant Orala.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1; Gap evidence 2 and 3; Gap evidence 1 and 2; Gap evidence 4; the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case was concurrent with the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who carried a U-turn in violation of the signal, and the negligence of the defendant A who neglected the signal violation and the duty of front-time care. In light of the occurrence of the accident of this case and the details of the accident, the following circumstances, i.e., the defendant A passed the crosswalk at a very rapid speed, in violation of the signal at the time of the accident of this case, and did not take any measures for operating the vehicle even though the plaintiff vehicle was driven at a considerable distance.