구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 14:30 on July 28, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle did not turn on the direction of direction, etc. during the stop on the two-lanes of the second-lane road in front of the Southern-gu Seoul, Seoul, Seoul, which is located on the street (hereinafter “instant road”), along with the back door of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the first lane, and shocked into the front left side of the front driver’s vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,111,00,00 (= KRW 1,388,000 - KRW 277,000), which deducted self-charges 277,00 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 12, Gap's evidence 7, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of 100% of the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the car line while stopping. 2) The instant accident alleged by the Defendant was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the car line and the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was not driven in comparison with this, and the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is equivalent to 30%.
B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as revealed prior to the above facts admitted, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, was proceeding with one lane of the instant road. At the time, a large number of vehicles were in operation on the instant road, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving, and ② the Defendant’s vehicle was stopping at least 10 seconds at the time of the instant accident.