logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.12 2019나35116
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 4, 2015, around 20:03, the Defendant’s vehicle driven a two-lane between the three-lanes near the F station in Daejeon Seo-gu E and changed the course into three-lanes. On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the front part of the Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running a three-lane at the time, into the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 763,050,00, after deducting KRW 300,000 of the self-charge from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and applied for deliberation and coordination of the amount of indemnity against the Defendant to the G Deliberation Committee organized pursuant to the mutual agreement (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

On April 12, 2016, the Deliberation Committee rendered a decision to deliberate and coordinate the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault ratio of 15:85 regarding the instant accident (hereinafter “instant decision”) stating that the Defendant would pay KRW 818,592 to the Plaintiff.

According to the instant decision, the Defendant paid KRW 813,050 to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2016. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff refunded KRW 141,000, which is a part of the self-charges paid by the insured to the insured.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. In other words, the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of another motor vehicle running in the direction to which the driver of any motor vehicle is intended to change course of the motor vehicle in the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the evidence stated in the above facts acknowledged as the fault ratio.

arrow