logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.02.08 2016나8227
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner and driver of the C-Vehicle’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the following:

A person who drives a D-Motor vehicle at the time of the instant accident stated in the port of this case (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

B. On July 15, 2014, at around 10:50, the Defendant passed the intersection in front of the new intersection located in the Busan Northern-dong, where no signal apparatus is installed, to the right edge of the brick apartment at the direction of the Jinsan apartment, the Defendant caused an accident that conflicts (hereinafter “instant accident”) between the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle on the crosswalk, for the same time, at the same time, the front side of the said wall, apartment, and the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was lowered to the right edge on the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked on the side side of the wall mountain apartment, which was parked in a one-lane road, and part of the vehicle was obstructed by the center line. The Defendant’s vehicle did not stop at a temporary stop line installed before entering the intersection, and was in a state where the vehicle extending over the center line on the side of the crosswalk, which is a shock place, because it did not sufficiently wide turn to the left while making a left turn but did not turn to the left.

Plaintiff

The vehicle was on the crosswalk at the time of the accident of this case after passing through the speed prevention threshold and temporary stop line installed immediately before the above crosswalk. D.

The Plaintiff spent KRW 1,135,000 for repair costs due to the instant accident.

E. Regarding the instant case, the Road Traffic Act provides for the following:

(1) Drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses shall pass along the roadways on the roads divided into sidewalks and roadways.

Provided, That when a person enters a place other than a road, he/she may cross the sidewalk.

(2) In cases falling under the proviso to paragraph (1), drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses shall cross the sidewalk.

arrow