logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.18 2019나26471
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. At the time of the instant accident, the part of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to change the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane in the road accident situation near the Songpa-gu Seoul F apartment, Songpa-gu at a place on April 15:52, 2018 at the time of the instant accident, and the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) there is no dispute over May 4, 2018 on the payment date of the insurance proceeds covered by the Plaintiff’s left side of the vehicle, which was 638,200 won (repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost) and the payment date of the insurance proceeds covered by self-employed vehicle loss security (based on recognition); (b) there is evidence No. 1 to 10; and (c) descriptions or images of the evidence No.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the instant accident was caused by the common negligence of the driver of the original Defendant’s vehicle, and the negligence ratio is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 20% and 80% of the Defendant’s vehicle.

① When a driver intends to change course and it is likely to impede normal traffic of other vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course, he/she shall not change the course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). Nevertheless, given that the accident in this case occurred while trying to change the lane from the rear side of the Plaintiff vehicle to the second two lanes, the driver of the Defendant vehicle makes a sudden change in the lane to the front of the Plaintiff vehicle, and thus, the main fault in the accident in this case is deemed to exist in the Defendant vehicle driver.

② 다만 이 사건 사고 장소는 올림픽대로 천호대로 분기점에서 나온 차량이 합류하였다가 다시 갈라지면서 차로변경이 빈번하게 이루어지는 곳인 점, 원고 차량 운전자는 당시 피고 차량이 방향지시등을 켠 상태에서 2차로로 차로변경을 시도한다는 점을 인지할 수 있었는데도 속도를 줄이지 아니한 채 그대로 진행한 점 등을 고려하면, 원고 차량 운전자에게도 이 사건 사고에 관한 과실이 일부 있다고 보아야 하고, 그 비율은 전체의 20% 정도로 봄이 타당하다.

3...

arrow