beta
Text
1. On February 28, 2014, with respect to traffic accidents that occurred near the Daejeon Pungdong, Daejeon, Daejeon, around 14:13:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 28, 2014, at around 17:46, A driven a B vehicle and attempted to make a right-hand at the intersection near the Daejeon Pungdong-dong District Elementary School (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and caused an accident that would damage the Defendant’s DaMW 850i vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)’s right-hand right-hand side of the said vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. The Defendant filed a claim via C for KRW 12,751,940, totaling KRW 11,299,50, and KRW 12,751,940, which is the insurer of B vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7, and purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding repair costs, 1.69 million won is required to repair the Defendant’s vehicle damaged by the instant accident. Therefore, the Defendant’s repair cost of KRW 1,452,440 claimed against the Plaintiff is reasonable.
B. It is reasonable to see that the reasonable repair period is 4 days the Plaintiff claims in light of the damaged parts, etc. of the Defendant’s vehicle. However, it is not sufficient to deem the expenses incurred in borrowing and lending the same kind of vehicle as the Defendant’s vehicle between 4 days solely with the statement of evidence No. 9 as KRW 11,29,500, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, while the Plaintiff considers the Defendant’s vehicle as the same type of vehicle and the “BM M3” vehicle as the Defendant’s vehicle and considers it as 1,638,000 won incurred in borrowing and lending the vehicle between 4 days (30% of the membership discount rate) and 1,638,000 won (=5,00 x 4 x 1-30% of the membership discount rate). Thus, it is recognized that the Plaintiff is a reasonable lending fee.
C. As to the Defendant’s fault ratio, the Plaintiff asserted that the driver’s negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle is 30%. However, considering the priority order of the Defendant’s vehicle traffic and each damaged part caused by the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to make a right-hand way is difficult.