구상금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
Plaintiff
On December 22, 2016, at around 13:16, an intersection (hereinafter referred to as “instant intersection”) near the five-lane Si Repairdong, Mapo-si, Mapo-si (hereinafter referred to as “instant intersection”) and the two-lanes of the south south-si. The Defendant vehicle entered the road in the right right direction of the Plaintiff vehicle to the intersection in the north north direction, and shocked the part of the front rear part of the Defendant vehicle in the front part of the driver’s seat in the direction of the Plaintiff vehicle while moving back to the right direction of the Plaintiff vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 507,700 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as the insurance proceeds.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s asserted vehicle entered the instant intersection prior to the Defendant’s vehicle and was going through the said intersection. At the last time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle by turning the Defendant’s vehicle to the instant intersection without sufficiently examining whether the Defendant’s vehicle entering the said intersection is running.
Therefore, the accident of this case is wholly caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.
B. The Defendant’s assertion is a place where traffic control is not performed, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is negligent in failing to perform such concession obligation despite having the duty to yield the course from a road with a wide width to the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the said intersection, and it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle is 50:50.
C. It can be known that the above facts of recognition were added to the above evidence.