2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a company that owns B-si (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).

B. On June 22, 2015, around 22:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the fourth-lane road located in Busan Blue Port C was going to go straight along three lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to turn to the right lane. On the fourth-lane, there was an accident that conflict between the lower-hand side of the Defendant taxi and the lower-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while Defendant taxi was making a large turn to the right lane.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,505,000 remaining after deducting KRW 200,000 from the total repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the total repair cost of KRW 1,705,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle had no choice but to bypass on the three-lane because Defendant taxi stops illegally on the four-lanes. Defendant taxi neglected the front direction, etc., although Defendant taxi could see the headlight or direction direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven under normal conditions, due to his own departure from the front line of Defendant taxi.

The ratio of negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident is about 10% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and about 90% of the Defendant taxi.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of damages of KRW 1,534,50,000 equivalent to KRW 90% of the total amount of damages, and the delay damages therefrom, in accordance with the legal doctrine of subrogation of the insurer.

(2) At the time of the instant accident, Defendant taxi was in driving safely while checking the front and rear bank. The Plaintiff taxi driver does not confirm Defendant taxi going on the rear side of the fourth lane, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle makes a sudden round from the third lane to the fourth lane.