(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나40438

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나40438

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 21, 2015, around 13:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along the two-lanes of the 4-laned road in Gangnam-do, Gangnam-do, Gangnam-do, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Seoul. The Defendant’s vehicle changed the vehicle line to the two-lane while driving along the first lane of the said road, and the difference between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked on the right side of the vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 584,270 in the name of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence or video (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. While the Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident was caused by the total negligence of Defendant vehicle in violation of Article 19 of the Road Traffic Act in the course of changing the lane, the Defendant breached his duty of care to safely drive the Plaintiff vehicle by taking all measures so that the vehicle does not run against the Defendant vehicle that changes the lane, and the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle is at least 30%.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, the defendant's vehicle attempted to change the lane in an unreasonable manner without using the direction direction, etc. (the defendant's vehicle asserted that the direction, etc. was directed by the defendant's vehicle, but according to the video as stated in Gap evidence No. 6, the defendant's vehicle attempted to change the lane without using the direction direction, etc.). The plaintiff's vehicle was driving ahead of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, while the defendant argued that the plaintiff's vehicle was driving at a reduced speed and normally, the speed of the vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, the defendant

참조조문

-도로교통법 제19조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나51824

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.08.27 2014가단100489

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.31 2017나57129

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나39279

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.21 2018나42049