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. Cases of indemnity between the insurers of vehicles involved in a traffic accident;
A. On February 20, 2018, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)’s insured vehicle CD temporary 19:20 on February 20, 2018, and the situation of collision of road accidents in front of the building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as shown in the attached brief summary, the road at the location of the instant accident refers to the shape, as in the case of the instant vehicle from the point of the accident to the three-lane dedicated to the right ofpass.
Plaintiff
The vehicle was driving one lane, and the defendant's vehicle was driving two lanes ahead of the plaintiff's vehicle.
The Defendant’s vehicle, which has stopped on the front side, has entered a motor vehicle into one lane for a short-term motor vehicle. The Defendant’s vehicle left the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving ahead of the shut-off set up on the right side of the two-lane as one-lane for the damage.
Details of the payment of insurance money to Plaintiffs 3,045,000 won on March 19, 2018
B. The instant accident, which judged negligence, did not properly examine the traffic situation of the first lane, and changed the course to the first lane, thereby causing the negligence of the Defendant vehicle.
However, even as the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, if he was bound by the road and traffic conditions before and after the point of the instant accident, in particular, according to the movement of the previous Defendant vehicle, road condition, etc., or was driven on the left-hand side of the first lane, the accident could have been sufficiently prevented. Therefore, the Plaintiff vehicle is negligent in not properly doing so.
Plaintiff
It is reasonable to view the fault ratio of vehicles and defendant vehicles as 30:70.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 5-11, the purport of the whole pleadings
C. Defendant’s duty of indemnity 2,131,500 ( = 3,045,000 x 0.7)
2. The decision of the court of first instance at the same time is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.