구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Cases of indemnity between the insurers of vehicles involved in a traffic accident;
A. On November 30, 2018, at the location of the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) Defendant Insured (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) CD temporary 16:0 of November 30, 2018, the background of the instant accident and the two-lanes around the intersection of the third line road in the Changnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Changnam-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the left turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn.
Plaintiff
As between the two-lanes of vehicles, the two-lanes of the vehicle's right side of the plaintiff vehicle and the left side of the defendant vehicle came to the two-lane in order to pass a right side by overtaking the vehicle that the defendant vehicle waiting in the three-lanes for the right side of the vehicle.
At the time, the intersection was accompanied by the right-hand and left-hand signal, and the crosswalks on the side of the right-hand road had a pedestrian signal.
Details of the payment of insurance proceeds 4,626,000 won on December 20, 2018
B. The first instance court ordered the Defendant to pay 3,238,200 won per annum from December 21, 2018 to May 16, 2019, and 15% per annum from May 17, 2019 to the date of full payment, deeming the source of the instant accident and the ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault to 30:70,000 won (i.e., 4,626,000 x 0.7).
In light of the details of the accident, such as the point where the Defendant’s vehicle tried to overtake the front vehicle is a zone where the change of the lane is prohibited, the front vehicle was stopped in accordance with the pedestrian signal of the right crosswalk, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was traveling along the two-lanes, but the Defendant’s driver did not properly look at it, and the situation where the instant accident occurred, such as the vehicle immediately preceding the instant accident, the distance of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the shock side of the vehicle, etc., it was difficult for the Plaintiff’s driver to avoid the instant accident, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred by the said negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Grounds for Recognition] There is no dispute.