logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.14 2018나17661
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

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

B. On June 11, 2017, around 13:05, the Defendant vehicle is proceeding along the first lane, the left turn and the U-turn turn turn turn on the roads near the downstream of the Seoul subway Line 7 lanes in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu.

With the signal of the front side, while the vehicle stops in a two-lane, which is a straight lane, but has been changed to a two-lane, the two-lane, the straight line of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat, which is changed from the three-lanes of the mast and the two-lanes, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (c)

On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 12,633,99 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant vehicle stops at a one-lane which is the left and the U-turn line, the left turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn, and the change of the vehicle has been made by the driver's negligence on the part of the driver of the defendant vehicle in light of the fact that the shock part of the plaintiff vehicle is the front part of the driver's seat, and that the plaintiff vehicle entered the vehicle first by the change of the vehicle. The driver of the plaintiff vehicle could not at all predict the fact that the defendant vehicle which was stopped on the first line which is the left turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn back.

In this regard, the defendant has the right to change the course into a two-lane, where the defendant's vehicle driving at a one-lane is the vehicle left left.

arrow