구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. At the time of the instant accident, on June 8, 2018 at the time of the instant accident, the part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to move into two lanes from the bus stopping point located in the direction of the two-lane road in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul to the right side of the two-lane road collision at the location of the vehicle located in Jung-gu, Seoul, and on the one-lane, at the time of the instant accident, 1,096,00 won (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle), the total repair cost of KRW 1,370,000 excluding the amount of self-payment of KRW 274,00,000 from the total repair cost of KRW 1,370,000, which is an amount obtained by subtracting the amount of self-payment of KRW 274,000, Jun. 29, 2018.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view both parties’ fault ratio of the instant accident as 60% on the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 40% on the Defendant’s vehicle.
① The Plaintiff’s driver, while driving along a one-lane, tried to make a right-hand turn through a two-lane. At the time, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered a two-lane, a white solid line was set and thus, the change of course was prohibited.
Nevertheless, while the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding at a relatively rapid speed depending on one lane, it appears that the instant accident occurred while overtaking the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven at the two lanes at the time, and trying to make a right-hand way in a place where change of course is prohibited, and thus, the main fault in the instant accident ought to be deemed to exist in the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
② However, if Defendant vehicle drivers attempt to enter a two-lane right bus at the stop point, it should have entered the front and rear left well so that it does not interfere with the operation of other vehicles. However, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio exceeds 40% in total.
B. The Plaintiff’s insurance money of this case within the scope of indemnity is paid on the basis of its own vehicle damage and its own vehicle damage.