구상금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the following paragraph (2) shall be revoked.
2.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D E vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of Fsi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.
B. On October 17, 2017, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who is an employee of the Defendant, driven the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Gtel in front of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant intersection”) and left left the left at the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle and left the left at the same direction as that of the Defendant’s vehicle, and was stopped due to the vehicle’s delay at the instant intersection, and the driver shocked the front part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 744,900 to H Co., Ltd. for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 7, Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. (i) The defendant vehicle in front of the plaintiff vehicle at the time of initial height runs to the right line while leaving the intersection of this case, and stopped to the right line, and the plaintiff vehicle stops to the right line in the intersection of this case. The plaintiff vehicle was making a normal turn to the normal route in accordance with the driving direction at the intersection of this case and stopped to the right line in the intersection of this case. The defendant vehicle was trying to leave the intersection of this case unfairly and try to leave the intersection of this case, and the driver of the defendant vehicle was shocked to the front part of the right line of the plaintiff vehicle standing on the left side of the defendant vehicle. The accident of this case was wholly caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle is in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act.