구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On March 8, 2019, at around 01:00, the Defendant’s vehicle is driving along a two-lane road in the direction of the city, i.e., e., parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel with the side (hereinafter “vehicle in front”) in order to avoid the accident vehicle that was parked across the same direction as the previous accident, the Defendant’s vehicle impacted the part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle behind the same direction on the left side of the Defendant vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
On April 26, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,760,00,00 as insurance money, excluding KRW 1,000,00 of the insured’s self-paid expenses, among total damages, such as the repair cost, etc., of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the two-lane, was changing the lane to the one-lane, and was proceeding on the one-lane, and that it was caused by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant claimed that the instant accident was caused by the primary negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which led to the collision between the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle inevitably entered the same one-lane to avoid the collision with the previous vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred by the concurrence between the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
B. The lower court determined that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence duly admitted.