구상금
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part is revoked.
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A Lastren A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B put-in automobiles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).
Plaintiff
On January 8, 2016, at around 19:35, the driver of the vehicle was shocked by the front part of the defendant vehicle, who discovered and stopped the plaintiff vehicle in the parking area while going through the passage at the entrance of the parking lot in the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon, Seosung-gu, Daejeon, to the front part of the steering force of the plaintiff vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 453,000 (excluding personal charges) as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Grounds for recognition] A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the entries and images of Gap’s No. 1 through 4, and No. 6, and the entire pleadings was generated by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was going through the parking lot, and did not perform the duty of care for the error of Defendant’s vehicle from the passage in the parking lot, and the fault ratio is 40% of Plaintiff’s vehicle and 60% of Defendant’s vehicle.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff who acquired the right of indemnity pursuant to the subrogation provision of the Commercial Act 271,800 won (=453,000 won x 0.6) equivalent to the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle among damages equivalent to the automobile repair cost.
While Defendant’s assertion was going through the parking zone, the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s being left behind, even though Defendant’s vehicle was stopped in advance by reporting the Plaintiff’s vehicle and demanding caution and attention.
Therefore, the instant accident is caused by the unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that did not perform its duty of care in the future.