구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for CWts’ automobiles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for D freight cars (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle that was followed by reducing speed and passing through a quarterly safety zone in the vicinity of the quarter of the Do road in the Do road in Daegu-gu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, and the Do road in order to move to the Do road as the Do road protection zone.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,550,000 in total with the repair cost, etc. of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, video, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred because the Defendant driver did not discover that the Plaintiff’s vehicle would reduce the speed on the wind that the Defendant vehicle driver neglected to stop on the front-round, and that the instant accident occurred. Thus, the instant accident is entirely caused by the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred on the wind that obstructs the course of the Defendant’s vehicle by changing the lane from the two lanes to the four lanes in order to enter the zone where entry is prohibited. As such, the driver’s negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is more than 90%.
3. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., (i) the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle shall not make a sudden brake, such as reducing the speed, except in extenuating circumstances such as the prevention of danger, etc. (Article 19(4) of the Road Traffic Act), but the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle reduces the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by neglecting the duty of front-time watching, and (ii) the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle does not find that