logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.17 2016나26661
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 367,360 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from October 23, 2014 to November 17, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 28, 2014, around 19:54, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the two-lanes at the front of the D-distance Intersection in the Dolsan City, and attempted to turn to the left at the two-lane pursuant to the new subparagraph. However, while the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the one-lane in the same direction at the time, attempted to turn to the left at the right turn in the form of changing the two-lane into the two-lane in the intersection, the Plaintiff’s left turn to the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 459,200 at the cost of restoring the Plaintiff’s vehicle to its original state.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle entered a two-lane from the two-lane to the left, and the defendant's vehicle that was left at the first lane to the left at the plaintiff's vehicle was changed rapidly in the front of the plaintiff's vehicle and conflicting with the plaintiff's vehicle, so the plaintiff's vehicle is without fault.

In this regard, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant did not yield the vehicle by recognizing the defendant's vehicle changing the lane within the intersection and reducing speed, but rather, he should be recognized as negligence on the plaintiff's vehicle which has increased the damage by confising the speed.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, as the defendant's vehicle that attempts to turn to the left at the intersection, the vehicle must turn to the left along the line set at the intersection, and if the vehicle is changed, the safety distance shall be secured and the vehicle line shall be changed.

arrow