beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,320,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 9, 2016 to August 11, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B car (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On June 7, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle: (a) while driving the Defendant vehicle and making a left-hand turn for the protection of the Non-Protection of the U.S. No. C in the front of the U.S. Man-dong-dong-gu-gu-si-si-U.S.-ri-si-si-si at Goyang-si, the driver of the Defendant vehicle conflict with the Plaintiff of D driver who was directly under C in accordance with the straight-on signal from
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 2832,00,000 to August 8, 2016 due to the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the allegations and the above-mentioned facts, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected his duty to safely turn to the left in a manner that does not interfere with the operation of other vehicles that proceed in accordance with the new provision by properly examining the front side and left side in making a left-hand turn.
Accordingly, the defendant argued that the accident of this case is not only the negligence of the defendant's driver's breach of the above duty of care, but also whether there is a non-protective left-hand left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-off vehicle even though they were directly sent, since the plaintiff's negligence that occurred while neglecting the duty of care, the plaintiff's negligence should be offset against 40% of the plaintiff's negligence. However, the video of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are insufficient to recognize it, and no other evidence exists
According to the above evidence and the video of Gap evidence No. 10, one of the two-lanes of the running direction of defendant vehicle is left or left-hand.