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, the insured vehicle CD temporarily 09:20 on September 20, 2018 at the time of the instant accident: (a) the background leading up to the instant accident on October 4, 2018, which occurred on September 4, 2018 at the time of the instant accident (i.e., the Defendant vehicle repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle 2,198,000 won - Self-paid KRW 100,000) with the front side of the left side of the Defendant vehicle and the rear side of the Plaintiff vehicle moving into the first lane; (b) the fact that there is no dispute over the background leading up to the instant accident on October 4, 2018 (based on recognition); (c) evidence Nos. 1-8; and (d) evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2; and (d) the purport of all pleadings and arguments as a whole.
2. In light of the following circumstances, the instant accident was caused by the common negligence of the driver of the original Defendant’s vehicle, and the negligence ratio is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 10% and 90% of the Defendant’s vehicle.
① The Defendant’s vehicle runs in a two-lane, resulting in brooms, and entering a one-lane, faced with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was in normal driving in the first lane, and thus, the primary fault in relation to the instant accident ought to be deemed as the Defendant’s driver.
② However, considering the fact that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was running in the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was aware that the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driving in the two-lanes of the said vehicle, was entering the said vehicle, without reducing the speed, the driver’s negligence on the instant accident should be deemed to exist, and even if considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left side of the first-lanes, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle could not avoid the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle could have avoided the instant accident only on the sole basis of reducing the speed, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver would have tried to drive the Defendant vehicle by speeding without lowering the speed.