2014Na16577 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

.

z

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Da7237 Decided October 23, 2014

May 29, 2015

June 26, 2015

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. In relation to the traffic accident stated in the attached list, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant does not exist.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, including the cost of the supplementary participation.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim and its ground of appeal are stated in the Disposition. (3) The Plaintiff’s claim and its ground of appeal are stated to the effect that the Plaintiff appealed the entire judgment of the first instance or reduces the claim in preliminary case. Therefore, it is clearly stated that the purport of the claim and its ground of appeal has not been reduced.)

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the owner of Daejeon 50 Ba*** Hoysta taxi (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's vehicle") and is the owner of 64 U.S. *** * * 500 vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant's vehicle").

B. On September 4, 2013, around 18: 53, the driver of the Plaintiff, who operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle, caused a traffic accident listed in the attached Table, where the driver was driving the Defendant’s vehicle on the right side side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, following the front side side side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”) while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of Daejeon Daejeon-dong, Dong-dong (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, each video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Party’s assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The Plaintiff’s driver, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, completed the change of the lane and passed through the instant intersection. Although the instant accident was sufficiently aware of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the two-lanes after the instant intersection, the Plaintiff’s driver intentionally concealed the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant does not exist in relation to the instant accident.

나 ) 피고차량의 손해 부분 중 수리비에 관하여 피고보조참가인 이 피고에 게 5 , 070 , 000원의 보험금을 지급하였으므로 , 보험자대위에 의하여 수리비 채권이 丁에 이 전되어 이 사건 피고차량의 손해액은 피고차량의 대차료에 한하여 인정되어야 한다 .

C) The amount of damages equivalent to the rent due to a traffic accident should be limited to ordinary rent paid when the vehicle leasing company rents the same kind of vehicle, which is actually used as the vehicle leasing company. In light of the production year, mileage, etc. of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant vehicle shall brande 5Ggs and be calculated based on the rent of the vehicle 4 February, 200, and in addition, a large rental car company with a nationwide business network gives a discount of 30 to 50% of the rent through the membership registration procedure in common, and the above Internet membership is freely made without any restriction. Thus, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages to the Defendant does not exist in excess of 53,200 won ( = 266,000 won per day rental fee, X 50% discount rate of the Plaintiff’s liability on February 2, 200).

2) Defendant’s assertion

A) The Defendant’s vehicle did not change the lanes before and after the instant accident, but stopped at the three-lanes prior to the instant intersections, and entered the two-lanes after passing through the instant intersections. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not see the Defendant’s vehicle in the blind zone, and it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to change the lanes.

B) The Defendant vehicle, with its own insurance money, has completed repair of part of the vehicle (a seal on the part above the paner and the right fence), but the part above the panion requires a long time time to repair the parts because it has no parts in Korea, and is refused to pay repair expenses in B, which is the Intervenor to the Plaintiff, and thus the vehicle is left alone in the factory site. Since the Defendant used the other vehicle in lieu of the Defendant vehicle, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the repair expenses and the damage equivalent to the rental fees to the Defendant.

(b) Facts of recognition;

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 10 (including each number), each video of the first instance court, the result of the verification of the film and video of the first instance court, and the whole purport of the pleading, the following facts are acknowledged:

1) The Defendant vehicle was imported into the Republic of Korea with the 2000-type vehicle and had been newly registered on November 8, 2007. On July 19, 2012, the registration of transfer was completed in the Defendant’s name. On December 2, 2011, the distance at the time of the regular inspection was 144,541m, and the odometer at the time of the comprehensive inspection around December 10, 2013 was 156,919km.

2) The time when the accident of this case occurred was about 18:53, and was somewhat congested as a vehicle adjacent to the road before and after the intersection of this case.

3) Before passing through the instant intersection, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant intersection while attempting to change the lanes from four lanes to four lanes, among five lanes, while passing through the said intersection.

4) A road is maintained in the direction of bending to a certain right side until the road passes through the instant intersection on the road before entering the instant intersection on the basis of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle.

5) Since the distance from five lanes to four lanes before and after the instant intersection is reduced, if the vehicle proceeds without changing the lanes from the three lanes prior to and after the instant intersection, it naturally enters the two lanes following the passage of the instant intersection.

6) At the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes through the instant intersection, there was no other vehicle between the instant vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle passed the instant intersection from the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the instant accident occurred after the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes through the instant intersection and enters the two-lanes.

7) The time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle walked after the signal signalling prior to passing through the instant intersection until the instant accident occurred is about about 25 seconds.

8 ) 피고차량 운전자인 ◇◇◇은 피고의 남편으로 용인시 처인구 * * * * 서 국내 차 량과 수입차의 판금 / 도장 수리전문으로 하는 1급 자동차정비공업사인 * * 의 부사장으로 근무하고 있고 , 丁의 직원이다 .

C. Determination

6. On the other hand, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's vehicle was not likely to cross-sections for the above cross-sections and the purport of the entire pleadings, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle is not likely to change the vehicle from the point of view that there was no possibility of changing the vehicle's way to cross-sections or to the point of view that there was no possibility of changing the vehicle's way to cross-sections or to the point of view that there was no possibility of changing the vehicle's way to cross-sections or to the point of view that there was no possibility of changing the vehicle's way to cross-sections and to the point of view that there was no possibility that the change of the vehicle's way to cross-sections or to the point of view that there was no possibility of changing the vehicle's way to the point of view that there was no change in the vehicle's way to the point of view that there was no change in the vehicle's way to the left side of the vehicle.

(d) Sub-committee;

Therefore, the plaintiff's damage liability against the defendant due to the accident of this case does not exist, and since the defendant contests the above obligation, there is a legal interest to confirm it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted with the reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be accepted the plaintiff's appeal, and it shall be confirmed that the plaintiff's obligation to pay damages to the defendant does not exist. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall have jurisdiction over the transmission of leather

Judges Cha Sung-sung

Judges Bo Han-han

Attached Form (Omission)