구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A rocketing vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the owner of B bus B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On July 10, 2015, around 18:30, the Plaintiff’s driver driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the first lane of the three-lane road near the new 3-dong new 3-dong-dong-dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant accident”) and there was an accident in which the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle driving the same direction are shocked with the front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. By July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 887,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 6, video and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that "the accident of this case" was caused by the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and therefore, the plaintiff is obliged to pay the plaintiff the insurance money of 887,000 won and damages for delay.
As to this, the defendant asserts that "the accident of this case was shocked by the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who was driving in normal conditions due to the driver's failure to operate the vehicle, and thus, the defendant's driver did not bear any negligence."
B. In light of the judgment, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant’s vehicle went away from the main lane at the time of the instant accident, and the vehicle was invaded by the vehicle.
However, according to the above facts and each of the above evidence, the accident of this case is the other party vehicle while maintaining a sufficient distance of separation with the other party vehicle.