beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
At the time of the accident, the plaintiff's insured vehicle D E at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff's vehicle that had been moving from the two-lanes to the two-lanes at the location of Daegu Nam-gu, Daegu-gu, about May 11, 2019, changed from the two-lanes to the one-lanes, and the defendant's vehicle that had changed from the two-lanes at the time of the accident, to the one-lanes of the two-lanes of the collision insurance proceeds, 500,000 won to the insurance proceeds paid for the collision insurance proceeds, 50,000 won to the insured person's own share of the secured vehicle's self-paid
2. The judgment of the court below shows that the defendant's vehicle entered a two-lane by moving a vehicle parked at the corner to a two-lane, and the course was changed rapidly. However, in light of all the circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence mentioned above, such as the fact that the defendant's vehicle that entered the two-lanes could have turned on the direction direction, etc. and attempted to change the course to a one-lane, it is reasonable to view that the accident in this case occurred concurrently due to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who neglected to perform the duty to check the vehicle after changing course, and that the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected to perform the duty to check the vehicle after changing course, and that the rate of negligence is 3:7.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,626,20 as indemnity (i.e., total damage 4,466,00 x 70% x self-payment - KRW 500,000, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da236431 Decided January 28, 2016) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 24, 2019, which is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from May 24, 2019 to July 24, 2019, which is the date of adjudication of the first instance court that is the date of full payment, to the day of full payment.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as there is no ground.