구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract for QM5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract for D automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. Around 10:50 on November 13, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped while driving ahead of the Daejeon Dong-gu E apartment Fdong, Daejeon, with the Hannam-distance distance from the SamsungM-gu, and the Hannam-distance from the Hannam-gu, the Hannam-do, one-lane.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff’s vehicle was scrapped due to the instant accident, and on December 7, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,540,000 to the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant accident with the insurance proceeds of KRW 50,000.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7
2. The parties' assertion
A. As the instant accident occurred with the wind that the Defendant vehicle driver did not secure the safety distance and neglected to perform his duty of care at all times, the instant accident was entirely caused by the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred on the wind of stopping the Plaintiff’s vehicle to get out of the bus exclusive lane without operating direction lights or emergency lights, etc., so the driver’s negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is more than 30%.
3. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle shall not make a sudden stop without giving direction lights or emergency lights to get out of the bus exclusive lane (Article 19(4) of the Road Traffic Act), and (ii) the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle neglects his duty of front-time parking.