logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.14 2018나82979
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the Plaintiff’s driver, and the Defendant is the Defendant’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On May 26, 2018, at around 13:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving ahead of the road along a three-lane radius near the F Building in Suwon-si. However, in the process where the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to make a right-way on the left side of the direction, the part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat was shocked with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The instant accident occurred in KRW 4,854,000 for the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost. On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,354,000, which deducted KRW 500,000 for the Plaintiff’s driver’s self-charges (=4,854,000 - 50,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Where all drivers of vehicles intend to make a right-hand turn to the intersection, they shall proceed slowly to the right-hand side of the road in advance (Article 25 (1) of the Road Traffic Act), and the drivers of vehicles who intend to enter the intersection where traffic is not controlled at the same time shall yield the right-hand side;

(Article 26(3) of the Road Traffic Act (Article 26(3). According to the images of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act, it is difficult to readily conclude that a width of one of the three-distance roads in this case is wide, and it cannot be readily concluded that one of the original and the Defendant vehicles clearly entered the right-hand side. Thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle that is directly from the right-hand side has the priority to pass, and the Defendant

In addition, the defendant vehicle is to proceed to the center line of the lane.

arrow