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. At the time of the instant accident, on January 15, 2019 at the time of the occurrence of the accident, the Defendant’s vehicle, in the situation of the collision near the port of south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City on January 16, 10, 2019, near the port of the instant accident, has attempted to change the multiple lanes from one to five lanes among the five lanes of the said expressway, the amount of the insurance proceeds paid for the collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driving on the four lanes of the said expressway, shall be KRW 1,557,60 (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle) with the total repair cost of KRW 1,947,00,000 excluding KRW 389,40,000 of the self-paid cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurance proceeds secured by its own vehicle, and there is no dispute as to March 4, 2019 [the grounds for recognition], Gap’s evidence 1 through 7, and Eul’s evidence
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence as seen earlier, namely, the driver of any motor vehicle, who intends to change the course of the motor vehicle, may not change the course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course. ② However, in light of the following circumstances, the accident in this case occurred while the motor vehicle driver changed the lane from the first to the five lane without properly examining the right and the right while the motor vehicle was at the fourth lane, the driver of the motor vehicle in this case appears to have been due to the principal negligence of the motor vehicle driver.
Meanwhile, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding without taking measures, such as reducing the speed, even though the Defendant’s vehicle shows a sudden change in the lane due to the video image submitted by the Plaintiff, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also deemed to have been able to fully see or recognize the change of the lane from the first to the five lane. Therefore, even though the Defendant’s vehicle is obliged to drive safely by taking into account the movement of the vehicle, it was negligent in neglecting it, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also erroneous.