logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.17 2014나68173
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

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the A rocketing car (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s automobile”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the BNA car (hereinafter “the Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On September 28, 2013, at around 15:48, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded with a point of 10.5 km in the Seocho-gu Highway in the direction of Gangseo-gu Highway from the jurisdiction of the military body from the jurisdiction of the Jeju Jeju Gotter in the direction of the military body. On September 28, 2013, the part of the Defendant’s vehicle left behind the left side of the front side and the rear side of the vehicle.

C. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 505,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. The Plaintiff’s vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion runs one lane between four lanes.

In order to change the two-lanes, the accident of this case occurred on the wind that the defendant's vehicle driving the three-lanes in the rear side changed to the two-lanes at the same time, and the defendant's vehicle driving the three-lanes on the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle was shocked with the rear wheels of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the vehicle gets into the front side of the plaintiff's vehicle.

Therefore, the accident of this case was caused by the previous negligence of the driver of the vehicle on the part of the defendant, and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff, and therefore the defendant is liable to pay the above KRW 50

3. According to the images of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff who used the first lane is: (a) the defendant's vehicle faces with the plaintiff's vehicle while going forward from the right side of the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff; (b) the defendant's vehicle faces with the plaintiff's vehicle while leaving the front of the vehicle on the right side of the vehicle on the side; and (c) the vehicle's trace may be found after the right side of the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff; (d) however, the vehicle's trace may take place in the shape of the road or the mechanical malfunction of the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff; and (e) the direction side of the vehicle on the right side

arrow