beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part resulting from the participation of the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 20:40 on December 7, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a Dststalian car (hereinafter “Plaintiff-invested vehicle”) in the front of the Tri-gu, Gwangju (in light of the direction of the Plaintiff’s proceeding, several bends and bends in the right direction; hereinafter “instant intersection”); and (b) attempted to turn to the right direction from the front side of the Y3 car (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”) of Defendant-driving who attempted to turn to the left to the right edge from the front side of the Y3 car (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”) in front of the driving seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, by shocking the part of the front wheeler part of the Plaintiff’s chief chief driver of the vehicle, resulting in the Defendant’s injury, such as salt and tension, ewalle, and tension of the structural part.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) B.
The intersection of this case is at the intersection of the three-lanes from the running direction of the defendant vehicle (the central line is installed by the safety zone display, and the crosswalk is installed by the intersection in the straight direction) and the one-lane road from the running direction of the plaintiff vehicle (the road width is a total of 3.6 meters). At the time of the accident of this case, a number of vehicles were parked on the two sides of the road of the said one-lane road.
C. Meanwhile, after the instant accident, the Defendant filed a civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Service against the Plaintiff Intervenor, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, three times from June 28, 2012 to August 23, 2012. On the other hand, the Financial Supervisory Service respondeded to the purport that “the Plaintiff’s negligence 40% in light of the investigation result by the investigative agency and the Plaintiff’s assertion, etc., and that the Defendant’s negligence 60% is adequate.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 9, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-1 and Eul evidence 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.