구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to F vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. Around 09:20 on January 8, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two lanes near H middle schools located in Seopoposi G (hereinafter “instant road”) and driving on the one lane near H middle schools in the instant road in order to avoid the change of the two lanes, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the rapid brakes and steering gear to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle moving along the two lanes. At that time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle turns off the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the fact that the booms of the road surface at the time, and the direction of the brightness, etc. installed at the right beam of the boundary.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 17,084,000 in total, including the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, by January 24, 2018, with the insurance proceeds from the instant accident.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the witness I's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In full view of the evidence as seen earlier, the instant accident is found to have occurred due to the negligence that the driver of the Defendant vehicle changed the vehicle vehicle from the first to the second two-lane without considering the situation of the vehicle running along the second two-lane.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle has contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the accident by shocking the columns, etc. of the boomed by the negligence of sudden operation of the steering gear due to the driver's negligence, and that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle has neglected the duty of booming and the duty of safe driving, such as the enhancement of speed, etc. in order to not yield the course to the defendant vehicle who attempted to change the course, so such driver's negligence should