logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.01.12 2016가단30520
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,70,833 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 20, 2016 to January 12, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B and C, and the plaintiff is an operator of D strawers and E straw vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle").

On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff was driving on the fourth-party expressway in the vicinity of Ji-dong, Ji-dong, Ji-dong, the fourth-party lane in the above third-party lane, and the automobile operated by B was changing from the above third-party lane to the fourth-party lane, and the Plaintiff was driving on the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

The Defendant guaranteed 70% of the repair cost, with the ratio of negligence of the instant traffic accident to Plaintiff 30% and B 70%.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 11 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the traffic accident of this case where liability for damages occurred as a whole for establishing the purport of the argument as a whole. The traffic accident of this case where the plaintiff's vehicle was at the fourth line among the four-lanes of the four-lanes of the four-lanes, the plaintiff's vehicle operated on the third line of the above road is changed to the fourth line, and it was caused by direction light, etc., and the vehicle operated on the third line of the above four-lanes of the four-lanes of the vehicle. The plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for all damages due to the traffic accident of this case.

As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that there was negligence of 30% on the part of the Plaintiff, and according to the evidence as seen earlier, the instant traffic accident did not take necessary measures in advance, such as making the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving ahead of its lane, giving the Plaintiff a direction light, etc., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who would receive the side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was sealed, or was on the side of the said two vehicles due to the Plaintiff’s act of avoidance.

arrow