logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.10 2016나36040
구상금
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 4, 2015, around 08:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the three-lanes of the 08:3-lanes in the Pungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Pungnam-si, and changed the course to the four-lanes. When the traffic of the changed lanes, the change to the three-lanes was made, and the two-lanes of the Defendant vehicle, which changed from the two-lanes to the three-lanes, conflict between the right side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On February 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 981,500 as repair expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 to 2 (including branch numbers, if any) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred almost after the plaintiff's vehicle completed the course change, and the defendant vehicle did not look well at the flow of the vehicle in the lane to be changed, and the plaintiff vehicle was shocked while changing the course for the plaintiff vehicle, and the accident is caused by negligence of the defendant vehicle.

As to this, the Defendant had already completed the change of course in three lanes, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused the instant accident by changing the vehicle without securing the safety distance. Thus, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the negligence on the Plaintiff’s vehicle is recognized.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant accident attempted to change the course without properly understanding the progress of other vehicles, even though the vehicle seeking to change its course should not interfere with normal traffic of other vehicles by properly examining the progress of the vehicle in the lane intended to change.

arrow