beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff Vehicle”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
B. On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running along the center of the central line on the road at Gangseo-si, Gangseo-si, Gangnam-si, Seoul. On June 11, 2019, an accident occurred that the Defendant’s vehicle, who was driven at the center, lost its center by going through the border line on the opposite side of the road and was shocked with the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On June 18, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,440,00 with the insurance proceeds from the total hand of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On June 20, 2019, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 550,000 with the remaining value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, Eul 1 through 4 evidence (including each number if there is a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is that, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle is running along the center line, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the right-hand boundary, lost its center, and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle beyond the center line, and the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle is equivalent to 70%.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven by the center line.
C. The following circumstances, i.e., the road that caused the instant accident, along with the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, have the duty of care to safely operate the said road by making it possible for drivers of the instant road to live well, and reduce the speed, rather than ordinary cases. ② However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding with the center line of the road that caused the instant accident by avoiding the bus parking zone in the direction of its proceeding. ③ Meanwhile, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding with the center line of the road that caused the instant accident by avoiding the bus parking zone.