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
1. Facts of recognition;
A. At around 20:00 on March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s low-speed car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) and driven along the first lane, the left-hand and U-turn-only exclusive lane, among the third-lanes of the Don-dong D Hospital’s shooting distance in Jeju-do, the Plaintiff: (a) changed the vehicle to a second-lane, a straight line; (b) the E-si (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) driven along the Defendant’s vehicle into a second-lane, a straight line; and (c) changed the vehicle to a second-lane, a straight line, the front part of the right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Accordingly, the plaintiff paid the repair cost of KRW 1.58 million.
B. The Defendant concluded a mutual aid contract with the Defendant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry or video, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 2, 4 through 5 (including each case where there is a serial number)
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred due to the mistake that the defendant vehicle, which was in a two-lane which is a two-lane in which only a straight line is possible, has changed the lane as a single lane beyond a white solid line.
[The defendant asserted that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was negligent by 50%, since the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, who was driven by the plaintiff vehicle in front of the plaintiff vehicle, was at the front of the D Hospital, was at the end of the stop zone (the distance of about 20 meters from the rear side of the defendant vehicle to the first lane, changing the vehicle from the second lane to the first lane. If the plaintiff vehicle did not change the vehicle from the fourth lane to the first lane, the vehicle could be verified by the plaintiff vehicle, which was driven by the driver of the vehicle in front of the plaintiff vehicle, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was at the end of the vehicle.
However, it is not normal that the vehicle of the plaintiff has changed rapidly from the side of the defendant vehicle immediately preceding the accident to the first lane.