구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 100,800 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from August 12, 2014 to October 16, 2015.
1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings at each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 and 3:
The plaintiff is the insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the A A Le-Scar (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's vehicle"), and the defendant is the insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the B LA car (hereinafter referred to as
B. Around 15:30 on August 8, 2014, the Defendant driver of the instant vehicle: (a) driven the Defendant vehicle on the front side road of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant road”); (b) and (c) driven the Defendant vehicle on the front side road of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant road”); (c) caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the instant road from the lower side of the parking lot located on the right side of the instant road as of the direction
(hereinafter referred to as the “first collision”). The Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to the first collision, has shocked the part of the back part of the Done Star Motor Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) parked on the right side of the road in this case, which was pushed down in the front direction of the Defendant’s vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.
On August 11, 2014, the Plaintiff paid 336,000 won, which is the amount calculated by deducting the total sum of the cost of repairing and leasing damaged vehicles due to the instant secondary accident, and the amount equivalent to 10% of the cost of parking of damaged vehicles, from the owner of the damaged vehicle according to the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff.
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned is that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver who violated the duty of slowly driving and the duty of safe driving on the road in this case, which is a children’s protection zone and a backway road without central line, and that of the Plaintiff’s driver who violated the duty of safe driving. The negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver regarding the instant accident, is 50:50.