beta
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
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Vehicle”).
At the same time, the two-lanes between the two-lanes between the Republic of Korea and the South and North Korea are the intersection of the two-lanes between the South and North Korea, and the two-lanes between the South and North Korea (one-lanes) road between the South and North Korea, and the Kim Jong-dong and the blood ties, and the defendant, on September 30, 2016, was driving the D private-wheeled vehicle from the Kim Jong-si and entered the above two-lanes in violation of the signal and the signal that came into the same as the blood ties, while driving the D private-owned vehicle from the Kim Jong-si Sea on September 30, 2016 to the blood ties. The part of the plaintiff's front part of the motor-wheeled vehicle, which was in progress from the IC bank in the south of the South and North Korea, to the left side of the said two-wheeled road.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,160,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as insurance proceeds.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 13 through 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the facts of recognition and the overall purport of the pleadings, and the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the arguments, namely, the following circumstances: at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, three vehicles such as trucks and automobiles were signaled; the defendant entered the intersection in two lanes by the above vehicle; the plaintiff vehicle was under direct control according to the new code; the defendant's vehicle was presumed to have not been seen to have been seen to have been seen to have been exposed to the signal waiting vehicle in the direction of the passage of the plaintiff vehicle; in particular, since the vehicle height of the vehicle at the front of the traffic signal No. 1 to 3, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle appears to have been able to find the defendant after the defendant completely entered the intersection; and at all, the speed at which the defendant could have become an intersection.