beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On May 31, 2016, B: (a) driven a C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 20:30 on May 31, 2016; (b) turned the front distance of the vehicle in the Gu-U.S. D along the same-sex road from the shooting distance of the Man-dong square to the same-sex road; (c) the previous vehicle stopped along the two-lanes in order to turn to the right-hand left-hand left-hand; (d) the F vehicle of the Plaintiff’s driver (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) proceeding following the two-lanes depending on the opposite two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) turned into the front door of the Plaintiff’s right-hand side.
The Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the cryp and the cryp salt base due to the foregoing accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged to cover KRW 3,636,720 for repair costs.
The defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract against the defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the instant accident as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. Whether the limitation of liability is limited or not, the defendant argued that there was an error by neglecting the duty of safe driving in preparation for the case where there is a vehicle that has changed course while driving on the front side. However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the description of No. 13, No. 14, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the distance between the plaintiff's vehicle, which the defendant's vehicle was driving from the rear side to the second side at the time of commencing a change of course from the first to the second lane, is about about 16 meters, so it is difficult to avoid a conflict with the defendant's vehicle even if the plaintiff's vehicle was driven rapidly between the defendant's vehicle and the second half at the time of commencing a change of course. The plaintiff is to avoid a conflict with the defendant's vehicle.