logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.03 2018나37412
구상금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

B. On October 11, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a one-lane of the two-lane road in front of the E market in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si. The Defendant’s vehicle stopped at the two-lanes, and was in front of the E market, and was in front of the two-lanes, from the view of the fixed distance room in the E market. The Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped at the two-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was approaching the one-lane while entering the one-lane and shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 23, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,779,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle according to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle used emergency lights, etc. at the two-lanes around the passage of the Defendant’s vehicle and stopped, she entered the Defendant’s own one-lane, and she shocked against the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the instant accident is entirely caused by the Defendant’s negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5,779,00 won for indemnity and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver, who neglected the duty of prior watch while neglecting the duty of prior watch, and the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle reaches 20%.

3. Determination

A. When the driver of any motor vehicle intends to change course of the instant accident, he/she shall not change his/her course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change his/her course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), and shall not change his/her course when the driver is likely to impede normal traffic of the motor vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act)

arrow