beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. On June 14, 2019, June 214, 2019, at the time of the accident regarding the instant accident, the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) was sent back to the intersection before entering the intersection in order for the Defendant’s vehicle to turn to the left from the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the flow distance from the south-gu, Ulsan-gu, Nam-gu at the location of the Defendant vehicle CD at the time of the instant accident (hereinafter “the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle”) to be paid to the Defendant vehicle’s remainder after the left side of the front direction of the vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the payment of the insurance proceeds 2,373,050 won (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle) security and self-paid vehicle loss security, self-paid vehicle loss security, self-paid charge, 200,000 won insurance proceeds from July 17, 2019 [Recognition grounds], Gap’s or video evidence No. 16
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence revealed earlier, the following circumstances, i.e., the driver of any motor vehicle, who intends to change the course of the motor vehicle, may not change the course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course. ii) However, the driver of any motor vehicle is likely to have changed the course from the two lanes without properly examining the movement of the motor vehicle running in the first lane to change the course and caused the instant accident. In light of the following circumstances, the instant accident appears to have occurred due to the principal negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle.
However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding on the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle before changing course, and the Defendant’s vehicle was also trying to change its course from the second to the first lane before the occurrence of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver could sufficiently be aware of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle intended to change its course from the second to the first lane.