beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added in this court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. First, according to the fault ratio recognition criteria of the non-life-insurance association in the case of an accident that occurred in the course of a change, the negligence of the previous vehicle in the course change is recognized to be 70%, and the negligence of the latter vehicle is 30%, and even if the negligence ratio due to the overwork of the Plaintiff vehicle in this case is considered to be 50%, the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle should be considered to be 50%. The accident in this case occurred in the vehicle of the previous Defendant vehicle, which is the direct vehicle driving after the rapid change of course from the first to the second two lanes, to a certain degree. Thus, the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver should be recognized in accordance with the above criteria. ② The Defendant vehicle should have sent the signal to the direction for the change of course until the completion of the act, but the Defendant vehicle operated only one directioner and attempted to change its course immediately.
The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change the course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). However, the accident of this case is the same as that of the plaintiff's vehicle being driven in the two-lane, not that of the overtaking lane, but that the accident of this case occurred while driving in the two-lane near to 153km/h of the restricted speed. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's motor vehicle was normally driven in the two-lane. ② If the driver of any motor vehicle intends to change his/her course, the driver of the motor vehicle shall not change the course until the act is completed.