logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.10 2020나36627
구상금
Text

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the order to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D1 ton of cargo vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 5, 2019, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 12:57, 2019, and straighted the intersection of the intersection 59, Gamsan-ro, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, with green signal, an accident that the Plaintiff’s vehicle faces with the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the intersection (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On December 10, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 644,00,000, deducting the self-charges of KRW 200,000 from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s driver’s failure to perform the duty of care at the front time and entering the intersection in the red signal, and thus, the Defendant’s negligence of 100% on the part of the Defendant’s driver. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred while the Defendant was bypassing, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver was at fault of 40% on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver.

B. Determination 1) In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred by the driver of the Defendant vehicle’s fault (100% by negligence), and the mere descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof.

① The place where the instant accident occurred is a private-distance intersection with signal lights, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a straight line with green signal, and the Defendant’s driver was in a red signal given that the frontline signal of the Defendant vehicle was red.

arrow