logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나81068
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below against the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle driven by changing the lane to the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction from the left side of the proceeding, while driving along the 105 new interesting vehicular road in the direction of the direction of the direction of the vehicle, at around 13:54, with the direction of the new interesting Dong-dong, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.55 million to E Company at the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle according to the insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or the defendant does not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, Eul evidence No. 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to view the instant accident to have occurred due to the full-time mistake of the Defendant driver who moved ahead of the instant accident while changing the course behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of running the Plaintiff’s own vehicle.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the location of the accident in this case is divided into the intersection section into the intersection section, so it is possible to change the course. Since the road without any obstacle to securing the view, if the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle drives with due care, he could avoid the defendant's vehicle that is changing the lane, so at least 30% of the accident in this case is responsible for the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle.

However, it is not easy for a driver of a preceding vehicle to always show the latter vehicle, and in particular, it is not easy for the latter vehicle to drive ahead of it while changing the lane in the direction of the Advanced vehicle in the direction of the Advanced vehicle, and in the case of the intersection, it is basically overtaking.

arrow