logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.29 2015나52885
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. Basic facts

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

B. At around 15:05 on September 15, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and stopped the flow route from the luminous intersection to the eternal intersection in Suwon-si, Suwon-si to the right side of the Defendant vehicle, the left side of the Defendant vehicle, which changed from the 3-lane to the two-lane, while trying to change the two-lane from the eternal intersection to the two-lane, from the eternal intersection to the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,613,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred from the first lane, which is the right-hand turn, to the left, or from the preceding negligence of the defendant's vehicle. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle conflict with the defendant's vehicle in the process of changing the vehicle from the third lane to the second lane, so that the plaintiff's vehicle has a considerable fault.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the above recognition facts and the evidence revealed, namely, that the Defendant’s vehicle stops on the left-hand lane, and attempted to change the lane from the two lanes, the right-hand left-hand one. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle also changed the lane from the three lanes to the two lanes, the instant accident is a front line with the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who changed the vehicle line while stopping at the first lane, and the lane from the three lanes to the two lanes.

arrow