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
purport.
Reasons
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
At the time of the accident, at around 18:08 on February 11, 2019, the insured vehicle in the situation of the collision with the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) around the Hancheon-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) going to the left at the bottom of the underground street crossing, while the Defendant’s deducted vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) was driving at the lower end of the three-distance crossing, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle on May 28, 2019 due to the collision between the front side of the Defendant’s left side and the right side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”), the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 3,858,60, KRW 510,000, KRW 1,2410,510, KRW 1700, KRW 1000, KRW 5010, KRW 1500, KRW 15000.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a normal direct progress, and the instant accident occurred by one’s negligence who violated the duty of safe driving while making a left-hand turn at the intersection. 2) The Defendant’s argument summary of the instant accident occurred not only by the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, but also by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which did not properly turn out at the lower distance intersection.
B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be deemed that the instant accident occurred by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle. (A) The Defendant’s vehicle made the left turn to the left at the Sam-distance Intersection that is not arranged by the new subparagraph, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle directly engaged in pursuant to Article 26(4) of the Road Traffic Act is a career.