2018 Ghana26090 Damages (i)

o○

Daegu

Park ○

Daegu

Law Firm Man-Ma, Attorneys Cho Byung-jin et al.

July 12, 2019

August 16, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant sent to the plaintiff KRW 45,893,030 and a copy of the complaint of this case from March 9, 2016.

The amount calculated by 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

H. D. D.

1. Basic facts

On March 9, 2016: Around 00, the Plaintiff entered the crosswalk (hereinafter referred to as “instant crosswalk”) from India to the air-nadle-distance flooded area from the court of the Republic of Korea, where the Plaintiff was hospitalized with the front driver of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the hospital from March 9, 2016 to May 19, 2016, and was hospitalized on March 11, 2016 when the Plaintiff was hospitalized on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s full negligence, which continued passing the crosswalk, even though the Plaintiff reported the off-to-land driving by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff suffered property damage amounting to KRW 45,893,00,00, and KRW 19,000,00, in total, KRW 45,893,03, and KRW 030, and thus, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for the said damage.

B. Determination

According to subparagraph 12 of Article 2, Articles 13 (1) and (2), 18 (1) and (3), and 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses shall temporarily stop on the road divided into sidewalks and roadways, and shall stop on the road immediately before crossing the sidewalk so as not to obstruct pedestrians’ passage, after examining the left-hand side, the right-hand side, etc., and shall not obstruct the passage of pedestrians. In a case where it is apprehended to obstruct pedestrians or other vehicles’ normal passage, drivers of horses and riders of horses shall not walk the road by driving on the road. When entering the road in a building or parking lot, etc. of the road, the crosswalk shall stop so as to ensure pedestrians can cross the road, and all drivers of vehicles and riders of horses shall temporarily stop on the crosswalk before the crosswalk so as not to obstruct the passage of pedestrians, and the construction of the above crosswalk shall be deemed to be necessary to stop the above construction of the road, and the purport of the road, which is the front direction of the road and the entire entrance of the defendant.

The plaintiff, as a motor bicycle driver, is likely to impede the normal traffic of pedestrians, other motor vehicles and horses, is obliged to drive the motor vehicles and horses to stop crossing the road, and when intending to enter the road in the building, parking lot, etc. of the road, etc., he/she has the duty to verify whether the road is safe after stopping once again, and without examining the right and the right in the situation where the riders of the motor vehicles prior to the same direction stop, enter the crosswalk as they are in India. The defendant has the duty to temporarily stop in front of the instant crosswalk, and the driver of the motor vehicle driving pursuant to traffic regulations is sufficient to believe that other motor vehicles are also under the duty to observe traffic regulations and to take appropriate measures to avoid collision, barring any special circumstances, it is difficult for the driver of the motor vehicle, other than pedestrians, to expect crossing the road through the instant crosswalk, and in a situation where the vision is not sufficiently secured, it cannot be said that the accident occurred or the damage of this case occurred due to the defendant's negligence.

Therefore, the claim of this case under the premise that the defendant is liable for damages cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul