구상금
The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the manager of the road facilities where the instant accident occurred.
B. On January 23, 2019, around 19:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in a parking-stop zone in which the road located 19 (hereinafter “instant road”) is located at the southyang-si (hereinafter “instant road”). However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged by covering the Plaintiff’s vehicle, covering the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is a facility managed by the Defendant, beyond the reflectors.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On February 18, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,322,550 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (excluding KRW 500,000 as the self-paid share) as the insurance money.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The parties' assertion that the accident of this case was caused exclusively by the defendant's incomplete installation of facilities or management of roads, and the defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who parked exclusively in the zone where parking and stopping is prohibited.
B. The facts acknowledged prior to the error ratio, and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, namely, the Defendant is obligated to frequently check and repair the road facilities as a manager of the road of this case for the purpose of maintaining the function of the road and maintaining the traffic safety. If the Defendant took safety measures, such as making adequate repairs through an inspection on the reflectr of the road of this case, it would have been likely to prevent the accident of this case. ② Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s driver was parked in the area where the parking was prohibited, and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver was also affected by the accident of this case.