logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.11.20 2019나309557
구상금
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with CA car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with DA car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with the owner of the automobile.

B. At around 13:30 on August 21, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the front right door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the intersection through the intersection in the Fmate parking lot located in south-gu E at the port of port with the front right door of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,554,000 insurance money to the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the repair cost incurred by the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s fault on the part of the Defendant’s driver, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle first entered the intersection in the parking lot, which is the place of the accident, and the Defendant’s vehicle cannot be recognized.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that according to Article 26 of the Road Traffic Act, the negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant's vehicle in the accident of this case should be deemed to exceed 60%, respectively, in view of the fact that the defendant's vehicle was the right-hand vehicle and the accident occurred due to negligence that the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection rapidly.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings are as follows. The accident location of this case is a set parking lot where many people are expected to come to and depart, and the parking lot intersection is a place where other vehicles can come to and go at any time. Thus, each vehicle is a vehicle.

arrow