beta
Text
1. On July 25, 2019, in relation to the motor vehicle accident that occurred on the back streets following the Gangseo-gu Seoul EF Bank around 20:50.
Reasons
1. Around 20:50 on July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) driven a G SP car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on the back side of the G SP car owned by the Plaintiff on the back side of Gangseo-gu Seoul EF Bank; (b) obstructed the Defendant’s driving with the Defendant’s H G2X car in the opposite direction; (c) contacted the Defendant’s left rear wheels part of the Defendant’s vehicle with the left rear wheels of the Plaintiff’s left side.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion;
A. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s damage to the plate of the Defendant’s vehicle caused the repair cost of KRW 57,500, and the Defendant’s negligence contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant accident, and its ratio was 50%. As such, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant in relation to the instant accident (=57,500 won x 50%) did not exceed 28,750 won.
B. The Defendant suffered injury due to the instant accident, and the repair cost was 4,631,00 won due to the destruction of wheelchairs, wheel chairs, fences, fences, pans, etc. of the Defendant’s vehicle.
3. Determination
A. 1) The place where the instant accident occurred is a road, the width of which is narrow in driving at the two prices of vehicles, and thus, the Plaintiff, while having been negligent in performing his duty of care to safely operate on the front side and the left side, was in contact with the Defendant and caused the instant accident. Therefore, according to the foregoing facts, the Defendant is also liable for damages caused by the instant accident. However, according to the foregoing facts, the Defendant is also at fault, such as the Plaintiff, and the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, and thus, it is reasonable to take this into account in determining the Plaintiff’s liability. In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s liability ratio is set at 50%.
B. The scope of the damage is one medical fee.