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 facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the contents and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On October 21, 2016, around 04:30 on October 21, 2016, there was a traffic accident in which the part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff, who was proceeding two lanes on the four-lane road near the Southern-dong, Mapo-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, is in conflict with the other side part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff, and the other side part of the Defendant’s vehicle changed to the two-lane (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
C. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 244,400 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant traffic accident.
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that the traffic accident in this case occurred without verifying the plaintiff's vehicle, and that the driver's negligence of the defendant's driver who changed the lane from the first lane to the second lane, and accordingly, the defendant claimed the money stated in the claim against the defendant. In this regard, the defendant's previous vehicle attempted to change the lane, and the plaintiff's driver's negligence is 30% because the traffic accident in this case occurred while the plaintiff's driver who proceeded with the previous vehicle failed to yield it, and the vehicle accident in this case occurred.
B. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident, considering the overall purport of the arguments in light of the entirety of the evidence admitted prior to the determination, appears to have been driving in almost fluences, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are the Defendant’s vehicle who were driving in almost fluences.