구상금
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to gold Construction Co., Ltd. and A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On July 28, 2014, around September 9:28, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left the left at the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle’s front side and the rear side of the Defendant’s front side were shocked while the Defendant’s vehicle, who was driving in the opposite lane on the two-lane road in the middle of the two-lane.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On January 29, 2015, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,300,420 (including one’s own shares, KRW 460,00, and KRW 10,000 for special agreement damage) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and filed a petition against the Defendant for deliberation by the committee for deliberation on the dispute over claim for reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). On June 8, 2015, the Deliberation Committee set the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s side to the Defendant against the Plaintiff as KRW 4:6, and filed the instant lawsuit accordingly.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted that at the time of the accident in this case, the defendant's vehicle was on a sudden back, and the plaintiff's vehicle was not on speed, so the fault ratio between the plaintiff's side and the defendant's side should be seen as 10:90. On the other hand, the defendant asserted that since the plaintiff's vehicle was under speed, and the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection, the fault ratio between the plaintiff's side and the defendant's side should be seen as 80:20.
3. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 to 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Deliberation Committee shall have the position of the plaintiff's vehicle at the time of the above deliberation and resolution.