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. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicles”) by setting the insurance period from April 1, 2013 to April 1, 2014. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).
B. At around 16:30 on January 28, 2014, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeds directly from the south-gu office in the direction of south-gu office at port at port. However, from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running at the time to the road where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in operation, there was an accident of collision between the Defendant’s left side of the D Driving and the front side of the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the road surface, along with the Defendant’s vehicle, was written in the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle driving and the opposite direction, with the word “Yong-gu,” and the word “Seo-gu,” was written in front of that word.
On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 648,100 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The following circumstances revealed by the above facts finding and the video of Gap evidence No. 4, i.e., ① even if the defendant's vehicle does not have one-way traffic sign or no-entry prohibition sign on the road driven by the defendant's vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, the vehicle's driver who passed the above road appears to have operated the vehicle in accordance with the direction of the above language and the saves, and it appears that it was difficult for the plaintiff's vehicle driver to anticipate that the defendant's vehicle would go along the above indication and the opposite direction to combine it with the road that he operated. ②