logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나55263
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 an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On May 18, 2016, around 18:20, the Plaintiff, who continued the two lanes, changed the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane on the expressway located 127 km in the direction of Gangseo-dong, Taeju-dong, Taedong-dong, Taedong-dong, to the two-lane. The Plaintiff, who continued the two-lane, caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,753,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9 evidence, each entry and video of Eul 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s total negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had been driving in a normal straight line by changing the vehicle to the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving in a single lane, was forced to shock the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and damages for delay.

B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence as seen above, the instant accident is attributable to the Defendant’s driver who neglected his duty to safely drive by closely examining the movement of the vehicle surrounding the surrounding area, and neglecting his duty to safely change the vehicle’s vehicle by using a direction direction in advance so as not to impede the passage of the vehicle that is proceeding the same direction when changing the vehicle’s vehicle and the vehicle’s vehicle’s fault.

arrow