beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be the plaintiff's participation.
Reasons
1. At the time of the instant accident, the back of the part on the right side side of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who moved from the two lanes to the one lane from among the three-lanes of the road in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City at around 11:20 on October 20, 2019 at the time of the instant accident, insured vehicle D E of the Defendant insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle of the insurance relationship, and the two-lanes from the two-lanes of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) changed from the two-lanes from the two-lanes, to the one-lane, the back of the collision insurance money payment amounted to KRW 2,026,00,000 on the payment of the insurance money of the insurance money of KRW 867,00 on October 31, 2019 on the day of the final payment of insurance money of KRW 167,000 for the insured self-employed vehicle of the insured. There is no dispute as to the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant Lee-wheeled Motor Vehicle was changed rapidly from the location close to the plaintiff's vehicle, and then he was blicked, and there was no way to avoid this.
Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the driver of the Defendant-wheeled Motor Vehicle.
B. In full view of the reasoning of the evidence revealed earlier, the instant accident occurred by the negligence between the Plaintiff’s driver of the vehicle and the Defendant’s driver of the two-wheeled Motor Vehicle
It is reasonable to see that the negligence ratio is 70 U.S. A. 30 U.S. vehicles for the plaintiff.
The reasons are as follows.
① The instant accident occurred in which the Plaintiff, who had been driving in the two lanes, changed the two lanes to one lane on his own without verifying the situation of the first lane.
② However, since the two-lanes change before the two-lanes, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff) seems to have been expected to change the two-lanes in advance.
3. Nevertheless, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is considerably higher than that of the neighboring vehicle without lowering the speed.