구상금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
Plaintiff
On November 5, 2015, 18:30, 2015, the vehicles run two laness among the two-lanes at the entrance of the full-scale rest area in the direction of the border of Mani-ri Central Highway at Mani-si, Mai-si. The vehicle shocked the back part of the Defendant vehicle, which entered the two-lanes at the entrance of the above roadside rest area, to the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle.
By February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 4,296,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the foregoing accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the argument as seen above, are as follows: ① the entrance and exit exit were separated from the entrance and exit exit at the roadside of the roadside rest area; ② at the time of the accident, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped on the side side of the entrance of the roadside rest area and entered it to the expressway two-lanes as they are, in excess of the room where entry was prohibited; ③ at night, the vehicle was in operation on the expressway at night at a rapid speed of about 100km; ④ the Defendant’s vehicle was in operation on the expressway at a rapid speed of about 10km; ④ the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in operation, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately entered the front of the vehicle, even if the vehicle was in contact with the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately after the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in operation, and the vehicle was immediately in conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. However, even if the vehicle’s direction was in operation on the expressway, the instant accident occurred as the direction of the Defendant’s driver at the time of the vehicle.