beta
Text
1. On July 25, 2010, at around 16:52, c vehicles generated from the three-distance intersection in front of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Apartment 136-dong.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 25, 2010, at around 16:52, the Defendant driven a DOba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”), which is owned by the Defendant, and proceeded on the intersection of the DObaba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”) in front of 136-dong Seoul Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, with a comprehensive sports area located on the one-lanes of the three-lanes from the ebabbbba, and the above intersection is controlled by traffic signal, etc., and therefore, the above intersection should proceed in accordance with the new subparagraph, although the above intersection is controlled by traffic signal, it must turn to the left at the same three-lane from the first intersection in violation of the signal, and entered the above intersection at the right-hand side of the Defendant Oba.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
As a result of the instant accident, the Defendant suffered injuries, such as the right-to-hand light and the laverization of laversing, in excess of the floor.
C. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the motor vehicle of E (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) from September 22, 2009 to September 22, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number), Gap evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's accident of this case occurred in the course of entering the same three-lane from the first lane in which the defendant's Orala was in progress due to the violation of the defendant's signals, etc., to the third-lane, and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle could not have predicted the above abnormal operation of the defendant Orala. Thus, the accident of this case is entirely caused by the defendant's negligence, and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle was not caused by the plaintiff's negligence. Thus, the plaintiff is not obliged to pay the mutual aid money to the defendant in relation to
B. Defendant 2