손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner and driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the village bus vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On May 9, 2014, at around 14:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving along a two-lane road near the Gi-dong branch of the Gi-dong branch of the Gi-dong branch of the Seonam-si, Sungnam-si, changed the course from the two-lane to the one-lane, resulting in the Defendant’s vehicle, which led to a shocking part of the front line of the Plaintiff’s front line and the part behind the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. By June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 2,300,000 to the repair company and sirens for the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair costs and sirens.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, video, purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle, which the plaintiff's vehicle stopped in the first lane, and attempted to alter the vehicle from the second lane to the first lane, the defendant is obligated to pay all the plaintiff's vehicle repair cost of KRW 2,300,000 and damages for delay thereof. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle was giving unreasonable speed in order to prevent the change of the vehicle of this case.
B. In full view of the current status of the road where the instant accident occurred, the location of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle at the time, the damaged part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the first lane, even though the Plaintiff’s access to the vehicle at the time of the instant accident, could have been seen as making a rise in speed, the Defendant’s vehicle is negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident or the expansion of damage.