beta
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 judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
On August 21, 2017 at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident was parked in the front right side of the proceeding of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, which had been placed on the front side of the direction, while the vehicle was temporarily parked in the front side of the direction of the proceeding (in a state where bracs, etc. are used on the bracs, etc.), and the vehicle of the Defendant was faced with the center line, thereby passing the vehicle to the left side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s proceeding. The vehicle of the Plaintiff started slowly, and there was a conflict between the upper part of the Defendant’s left side of the left side of the vehicle and the upper part of the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle, on September 25, 2017, in which the payment of the insurance money was made in KRW 5,978,00,000 for the Plaintiff’s repair expenses of the Plaintiff’s vehicle / [Grounds for recognition]
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is obliged to pay KRW 1,810,800 to the Plaintiff the repair cost incurred by the Plaintiff, since the ratio of Defendant vehicle’s liability for the instant accident is 100%.
Article 22 (2) 3 of the Road Traffic Act provides that no driver shall overtake a motor vehicle that stops or travels slowly in order to prevent danger. According to the above facts, the driver of the motor vehicle, in violation of the above provision, was negligent in attempting to overtake the motor vehicle of the plaintiff who stops temporarily to avoid this, and the motor vehicle of the plaintiff is also trying to overtake the motor vehicle of the plaintiff, and the motor vehicle of the plaintiff is also trying to overtake the motor vehicle of the plaintiff at intervals of time so that it does not conflict with the defendant, but the accident of this case caused the accident of this case by negligence that neglected such duty of care.
In the process of such traffic accident, the shock between the plaintiff and the defendant is required.