logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.05.07 2019나58603
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 the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. (1) On December 22, 2017, around 08:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle running in three-lanes near E-do 4 lanes in the direction of the right part of the F vehicle immediately stopped before the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The instant accident occurred at the point immediately before the entry into the intersection, and the vehicle signal was changed to the right turn signal from the left turn and the right turn signal prior to the occurrence of the accident.

The damaged vehicle stopped by the defendant's vehicle that was driven earlier, and stopped to the right side in order to avoid a collision.

C. On January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,340,00,000, after deducting KRW 500,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and KRW 6,798,220 as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 335,010 as the damaged vehicle driver G and the passenger H treatment cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred at least 40% of the negligence of the defendant vehicle since the accident of this case occurred at the wind of rapid stop without any reason.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused exclusively by the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle because the plaintiff vehicle neglected the duty of front-time care and failed to secure a sufficient safety distance with the damaged vehicle.

B. (1) The driver of any motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction.

arrow