beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나306660

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the Aenz SL500 motor vehicles owned by D (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicles”), with respect to B rocketing motor vehicles owned by C (hereinafter “Defendant-motor vehicles”).

B. C, around 09:00 on July 2, 2016, driven the Defendant vehicle and tried rapidly to change the lane from the parking lot of the City Office of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation located in 3176 as of Daegu Suwon-gu, to the direction of the center line on the side of the five-lane road (the place where the internship is installed) along the new yellow distance from the west apartment bank to the front side of the road, in order to drive the Defendant vehicle from the parking lot of the City Office of the Agricultural Cooperative Federation located in 3176 to turn to the high-sea elementary school.

이로 말미암아 때마침 경북아파트 방면에서 신매네거리 방면으로 위 도로의 2차로에서 직진하던 원고 차량 앞범퍼 부분으로 피고 차량의 뒤범퍼 부분을 들이받게 하여, 그 충격으로 원고 차량이 튕겨 나가며 우측 인도에 설치된 자전거 거치대 및 자전거를 원고 차량 앞범퍼 부분으로 들이받게 함과 아울러 지하철 신매역 출입구를 들이받게 하여, 원고 차량을 폐차될 정도로 파손하였다

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The plaintiff paid KRW 44,207,200 to the owner of the plaintiff's automobile, etc. in accordance with the special agreement for securing self-vehicle under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 14 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s Defendant’s vehicle street along the five-lane road along which the passage of the vehicle is frequent, with the intention of making an illegal internship among four-lanes.

According to the first lane, the plaintiff's vehicle was driven normally.

Therefore, the accident of this case is caused by the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle.