beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,857,733 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 14, 2014 to July 15, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B-Vehicles (type C-Wller 300 C-Wller 2006, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D-Wl vehicle (Mable passenger vehicle; hereinafter “Defendants”), owned by C.
B. On January 14, 2014, at around 05:35, C driving the Defendant Insurance Vehicle, and proceeding one lane prior to the Franch shop in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a shift-side area from the south-west basin, C brought about a traffic accident in which the Plaintiff’s left-hand part of G driving, who was in the middle of the two lanes, transferred the two lanes to a two-lane course without properly examining the progress of the vehicle from the south-west basin, and led to the traffic accident in which the Plaintiff’s left-hand part of G driving, who was in the middle of the two lanes, was in the right-hand part of the Defendant Insurance Vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts, since the accident of this case occurred by negligence of C, which is the driver of the defendant insurance vehicle, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the accident of this case as the insurer.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is negligent and should be considered in calculating the amount of damages.
However, considering the road condition and traffic flow at the time of an accident known by relevant evidence, such as evidence No. 1 to No. 3, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, as the driver of the vehicle, appears to have been difficult to expect that the vehicle driving ahead of the vehicle would immediately enter the vehicle by changing the vehicle's route into one's main lane on the downtown road in which the traffic volume is large, and in such circumstances, there is no time to avoid the collision of the vehicle by changing the vehicle's course at risk of the secondary accident and changing the course of the vehicle's course. Therefore, the Plaintiff vehicle driver of the vehicle in this case is deemed to have caused the instant accident.