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 first instance court.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”) with respect to C’s 3.5 tons of cargo vehicles (hereinafter “E-math”).
B. On January 11, 2018, at around 05:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the two lanes of the Southern Sea Highway (in the vicinity of 161.3km) on the third line road, which is one of the three-lanes of the cargo loaded, and reduced the glass lux and glass (hereinafter collectively referred to as “slaved matter”).
The defendant vehicle, which was proceeding in the rear side of the two-lane, was changing the lane from the two-lane to the one-lane in order to avoid falling water, such as the map of the attached site in the case of the accident, was shocked by the center of the two-lane, and proceeded in the direction of the three-lane, while getting out of the center of the dourro, conflict with the road Aler.
C. Due to the foregoing traffic accident, on January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 50,000 to the Korea Highway Corporation KRW 550,00 as repair cost of the said road drails.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that there was a certain interval between the time when the cargo loaded was away and the time when the said traffic accident occurred, and if the driver of the Defendant vehicle displayed the front line properly due to a very large size of the fallen load, it could be easily recognized, and the Defendant vehicle could easily flow off to one or three lanes because the falling point was two lanes.
Nevertheless, the driver of the defendant vehicle did not properly operate the steering gear under the conditions that the driver did not observe the restricted speed or neglected to do so, resulting in a traffic accident that conflicts with the road guard.
In light of such circumstances, the above traffic accident is caused by the driver and the defendant's negligence.