구상금
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and incidental appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The appeal costs.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
B. On June 22, 2018, around 19:41, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding in front of the damaged vehicle in order to make a double parking in front of the E-vehicle, which had a double parking on the left side of the running direction in the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”).
However, in order to drive off his own vehicle parked in the instant parking lot, the Defendant was pushing ahead of the damaged vehicle in his front of the vehicle by double parking, but in the process, the Defendant shicked the left side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front part of the damaged vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On July 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,645,00,00 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
On June 27, 2018, the defendant paid KRW 1,837,530 to the owner of the damaged vehicle for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determinations as to the exercise of the right to indemnity by both parties and counterclaims shall be examined together.
The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the facts based on the fault ratio ratio of the instant accident and the evidence as seen earlier, that is, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is going on the front of another vehicle for double parking, and thus, it appears that the vehicle was negligent in examining the movement of the said vehicle even though it should be seen that the vehicle was inspected well, and instead of examining the contact level between the Plaintiff and the damaged vehicle immediately after the initial occurrence of contact with the damaged vehicle, it appears that the vehicle damage was expanded by moving the vehicle again while contact with the damaged vehicle. On the other hand, the instant parking lot also appears to be the Defendant.