구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to Arocketing car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an installation manager of signal apparatus located in front of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Airport High School (hereinafter “instant intersection”) (hereinafter “instant signal apparatus”).
B. B, around 13:00 on June 4, 2013, when driving a vehicle on the Plaintiff’s side and making a left-hand turn to the right-hand side of the Kimpo Airport at the right-hand side of the front-hand side of the Kimpo Airport, conflict with C (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) that is going directly to the right-hand side from the front-hand side of the Kimpo Airport at the right-hand side of the front-hand side to the right-hand side of the road, and the damaged vehicle was damaged by D, E, and E, while getting aboard the damaged vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Until August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 10,569,840,00, total of KRW 4,760,260, and KRW 5,809,580, as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the malfunction of the signal apparatus of this case, and thus, the manager is liable for damages to the defendant.
3. In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 5-2 to No. 6 of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5-6, in the direction of the pleading, the vehicle signal has been installed at the point immediately before entering the intersection of this case, and the same system signal was installed and operated at the point immediately before entering the intersection of this case in the direction of the driving of the damaged vehicle. The Plaintiff’s driver of the vehicle immediately after the accident of this case stated that he was the left left-hand turn pursuant to No. 5, and the driver of the affected vehicle also stated that the driver of the vehicle was in a direct turn-on, and that the driver of the victimized vehicle was a direct turn