beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
B. On December 17, 2017, around 13:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds from the five-lane road in front of the Fow in the Gu E, in the front of the Fow in Ansan-si. The Defendant’s vehicle driving ahead of the foregoing, attempted to change the course into a four-lane and attempted to change the course again into a three-lane course at the time the former vehicle attempted to change the course into a four-lane.
As part of the driver's seat of the Defendant vehicle, there was an accident that shocks the part of the steering gate of the Plaintiff vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 5,821,700 on March 16, 2018, KRW 137,500 on the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and KRW 5,684,20 on March 20, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and Eul evidence 7 to 9 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving at the third line of the instant road. The Defendant’s previous Defendant’s vehicle used to turn on the right direction, etc., and changed to the fourth lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked from immediately right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to three lanes for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Plaintiff
Since the driver of the vehicle could not predict such abnormal operation of the Defendant vehicle or avoid collision, the responsibility of the instant accident lies solely on the Defendant vehicle driver.
(2) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s failure to go back to the three-lane due to the Defendant’s change of course into the four-lane of the instant road, and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to go back to the three-lane.