logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.22 2019나2086
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. At the time of the instant accident, the part of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to enter a two-lane from May 7, 2018 at the time of the instant accident involving the Defendant’s vehicle CD on May 7, 2018, and the part of the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the two-lanes from the first lane to the two-lanes of the road collision situation near the Asia-si in the case of Asan-si and the third lane, and the total repair cost of KRW 400,440 (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle) calculated by deducting the amount of self-paid 20,000,000 from the total repair cost of KRW 60,440 (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle). There is no dispute on June 27, 2018 (the grounds for recognition) or video of the evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and Nos. 1 through 3 (the number of pages number).

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence as seen earlier, in other words, in light of the parts and video images, etc., which are found to have been changed from the original and the Defendant vehicle to the two lanes at the same time, the Plaintiff argues that the instant accident occurred while the driver of the Defendant vehicle was changed from the first to the second two lanes, even though the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle was changed from the second to the second two lanes, the instant accident was entirely caused by the Defendant’s negligence. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not mean that the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle completed the change from the first to the second two lanes, and there is no other sufficient evidence.

Rather, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle appear to have changed the two lanes at the same time.

The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(2) According to Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of any motor vehicle shall examine whether it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change course when he/she intends to change his/her route.

arrow