구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on B rocketing Private Taxi owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance agreement with C with the Defendant on DM5 automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. At around 03:30 on May 31, 2014, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the front road of the Southern-gu Ehigh School in Ulsan-gu, U.S. along the two-lanes of the four-lane road in the direction of the industrial tower from the right-side side of the industrial tower to the right-side side of the four-lane road. On the opposite direction, C discovered pedestrians crossing without permission from the center line to the right-side side, and tried to change the two-lanes.
C. At the time, the Plaintiff vehicle, which had been driving the three-lanes on the said three-lane road, caused an accident that conflicts with the F vehicle, which was driven along the four-lanes of the said road (hereinafter “victim”) on the wind to the right by plucking or digging the hand to avoid a collision with the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff, a mutual aid project operator of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 1,197,000 to the Intervenor’s Intervenor as repair cost.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor asserted that the instant accident occurred in the course of avoiding the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle that attempted to change the lane, and that the Defendant vehicle’s driver was grossly negligent.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that there was no conflict between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle, and rather, the plaintiff's assistant participant, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, was involved in the accident of this case while the plaintiff's assistant participant, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, was involved in the accident of
3. Determination
A. Therefore, this is applicable.