logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.06.12 2018나112459
손해배상금
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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract for D Bus (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On August 17, 2017, around 20:05, the Defendant’s vehicle began U.S. to proceed to the opposite direction from the E-lane near Western-gu, Seoan-si.

On the contrary, the opposite road is a three-lane road where a speed lane is installed for vehicles entering the intersection.

In the above intersection, there was no traffic signs restricting U-turns on the Defendant’s driving lane. At the time of arrival of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle started the U-turn because the signal apparatus of the intersection was red at the time of arrival of the said intersection, and the opposite lane was not sufficient, and the Defendant’s vehicle started to stop and start back the movement without making a U-turn as it is.

Around that time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the opposite lane, and when the said modified intersection entered the intersection, the signal apparatus of the intersection was green and passed the intersection as is, and thereafter, the parts adjacent to the Defendant’s vehicle, which began to go through the intersection as above, was shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time, the Plaintiff stated that the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was about 90 to 100 kilometers per hour.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul's Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s vehicle, as a bus, needs to follow-up in order to walk on the road. As such, the Defendant’s vehicle has a duty of care not to obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles in the U.S. in the U.S. proceeding by considering on-and-off time, etc. of red signal. Although the time of red signal almost has passed, the instant accident by the time of the following red signal.

arrow