구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
2...
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established with a person holding a private taxi transport business license in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and is a non-profit corporation established with its members, and is engaged in the business of compensating for damages caused by an accident during the possession, use, and management of a vehicle, and the owner of A-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Vehicle”) is the insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant-Vehicle”) as the Plaintiff’s members.
B. On June 27, 2015, around 14:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding in front of the exit of the 2nd parallel parallel of the 5nd parallel road in the direction of active service in the two-way direction, along the five-lanes of the 5nd parallel. However, while the Defendant’s vehicle driving the three-lane in the same direction changed the vehicle to the five-lane to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, there was a traffic accident that shocks the part of the front left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On August 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,653,00 of the insurance money as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleading
2. In light of the above facts acknowledged as above, the accident of this case is reasonable to deem that the driver of the defendant vehicle who changed the vehicle line in succession from the third to the five consecutive lanes without sufficiently considering the traffic situation of the vehicle to enter the vehicle, even though more than two lanes change each other in the order of changing the vehicle line in the road on which the traffic of the vehicle is very frequent.
Therefore, with respect to the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,653,00 paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and KRW 1,32,400 cited in the first instance trial among them, the Defendant’s obligation to implement the Defendant from August 8, 2015, which is the day following the payment date of insurance proceeds.