beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B and C options car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the person who drives the horse.
B. At around 19:50 on May 7, 2015, B driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driven the street in front of the city-speed village hall located in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, the front of the village hall located in Yangyang-gun, with a speed of about 71 km meters per hour from the front of the above village hall to the middle line of the above lane, which turned back from the front of the above village hall to the front line of the above lane, shocked the front part of the Plaintiff’s front part of the road.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the duplic supage of the cupage at approximately eight weeks of treatment, and the Defendant suffered injuries, such as blood species, damage to the duplicated suplicated suplicing of credit for about twenty (20) weeks of treatment, blood transfusion from credit, ruplicating rupture of the rupture at the left side, and opening rupture at the bottom of the ruplic rupture at the left side, etc., and were in an unidentified state up to now.
From July 2, 2015 to July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,684,160 in total to B as the name of medical expenses, etc. incurred from the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-6, Eul evidence 1-1 to 59, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The main point of the parties' assertion is that the accident of this case is caused by the defendant's abnormal driving of the road in front of the village hall, driving a light flag that the defendant does not have a light device at night to turn left or entering the road in front of the village hall. Thus, the defendant's fault ratio in relation to the accident of this case is more than 80%, and the defendant is therefore reasonable to deem that the defendant's fault ratio is more than 80%.