logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나54313
구상금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

(2).

Reasons

1. Basic facts (1) The Plaintiff is a mutual aid project operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement to compensate for the damages where the owner is liable for damages due to a traffic accident caused during the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to F vehicle driven by E (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

② On June 27, 2018, E driving a vehicle with the Defendant on the 17:15-lane in Busan Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, and driving the two-lanes in the three-lanes in front of the 3-lanes in front of the earth and sand station in the intersection in front of the earth and sand station, and changing the three-lanes into the three-lanes in order to transfer the two-lanes to the right side of the bank. During that process, the part on the right side of the Defendant vehicle driving along the three-lanes in front of the earth and sand station in front of the earth and the part on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle driving along the three-lanes.

(3) At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was waiting in front of the crosswalk in the vicinity of the accident site to get passengers aboard, and was in a situation where approximately 1 to 2 meters high from the passenger with a direct-time signal after getting passengers aboard.

④ On October 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 335,000 won in G and 377,000 won in total to H, as mutual aid funds for C on October 19, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2 through 6, 9, 10 evidence, Eul's 2 and 3 evidence, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff argued by the parties that the accident in this case occurred when the defendant's driver of the vehicle in this case attempted to rapidly change the lane or bypass on the lane in which the defendant's vehicle is in progress, so that the defendant, who is the insurer, is obligated to respond to the plaintiff's claim for compensation. Accordingly, the defendant's vehicle does not make a normal round on the three-lane due to the illegal stopping of the plaintiff's vehicle, and attempts to make a right-hand turn on the two

arrow