logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.07.20 2017나202
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the insurer who has entered into a truck insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On September 19, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the vehicle line to one lane while driving along the two lanes in the direction south of the Highway between 7:57 on the 125km in the direction south of the Highway, and the two lanes in the off-road tunnel. The Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding in the same direction depending on the one lane at the time, shocked the front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was proceeding in the same direction.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,292,00 in total at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and received KRW 3,704,400 from the Defendant on March 31, 2016.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, video of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The instant accident occurred due to negligence between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s two-lanes in the tunnel of the expressway where the change of course is prohibited. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,587,600, which deducts the Defendant’s money partially returned from the insurance money that the Plaintiff paid to A, and delay damages therefor. (2) The instant accident occurred due to negligence, even though the Defendant’s vehicle recognized or recognized the change of the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle, as it was in the circumstance where the Plaintiff was at fault, and the Defendant was compensated for 30% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., ① the instant accident is indicated with a lane change limitation (on board), as well as the occurrence of a tunnel in which overtaking is prohibited, and ② the passage tunnel is located on the road where overtaking is prohibited.

arrow