beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
On August 21, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD at the time of the insured vehicle’s accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the F station located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, for a location of 21:23 August 2018, 2018. While the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the F station located in Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, was facing the three-lanes of the above location, the vehicle in front of the F station in front of the foregoing location was moving into a sex investigative distance protection area on three-lanes, the vehicle attempted to change the two-lanes from the same direction to the three-lanes of the Defendant vehicle, and the vehicle in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the rear wheels and the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The payment of the insurance money was 1,184,000 won on September 12, 2018. However, the 600,000 won was transferred from the Plaintiff’s driver on behalf of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found in the above basic facts, each of the above evidence and the purport of the argument, even though the driver of the defendant vehicle does not interfere with the passage of the plaintiff vehicle that was going in the direction of change when the driver of the defendant vehicle changes his course, it seems that there was a conflict between the rear wheels on the front side of the plaintiff vehicle and the rear part because the driver did not find the plaintiff vehicle or did not find the plaintiff vehicle, on the other hand, it was anticipated in advance that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle will change the course to three lanes on his own without operating the direction direction, etc. from the driver of the vehicle.
There is no evidence to deem that there was a possibility of avoiding the collision with the defendant vehicle or that there was a possibility of avoiding the collision with the defendant vehicle. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the defendant vehicle driver who violated the career change method
B. As to this, the defendant shall speed the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.