beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties to the acknowledgement of the occurrence of liability, or may be acknowledged in full view of each description of evidence A(1) to 4, evidence A(10-1 to 4, and evidence A(11), evidence A(1) to 1-1 to 2-17, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
(A) On July 23, 2013, E driven a F SPP car (hereinafter “SP car”) around 20:5 on July 23, 2013, while driving a two-lane road at the entrance of both villages located in the northwest-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, along with the second-lane road at the entrance of the village located in the northwest-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, into the third-lane of the said road, while moving to the third-lane of the said road, it was rapidly changed to the third-lane of the said road without examining the existence and attitude of the vehicle driving on the third-lane road and without turning on the direction light.
As a result, G, which has driven a marina car (hereinafter referred to as “the car of this case”) in the same direction as the third way, operated the hand to the right side in order to avoid the collision with the car of this case. As a result, the car of this case conflicts with a signal, etc. installed on the right side.
(B) due to the instant accident, G died with the blood plesy, etc. on the same day.
(C) Plaintiff A is the wife of G, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are children of G, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into the instant automobile comprehensive insurance contract with E with respect to the instant ice car.
(2) According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of E, which tried to change the lane rapidly without properly examining the existence and attitude of other vehicles passing through the lane intended to enter the lane in the alteration of the lane, and without using the direction direction light.
Therefore, the defendant is an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 750 of the Civil Act.