구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Claim:
1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
On March 1, 2018, at around 21:05, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the lane from the first lane to the second lane on the 4nd lane of the 4nd line in the Dobongcheon-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the second lane, and the following vehicle of the Plaintiff, which was followed by the latter, conflict with the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 810,100 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Evidence No. 1, and the purpose of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred from the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately following the change of the vehicle line, the Defendant shall pay KRW 810,100,00, which is the total repair cost, to the Plaintiff.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the fact of cross-market recognition and the evidence mentioned above, the defendant vehicle entered two lanes due to the change of the vehicle line, and the plaintiff vehicle followed the latter. Thus, the plaintiff vehicle as the plaintiff vehicle does not take measures to ensure the safety distance when the defendant vehicle stops suddenly (Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act), but it does not take measures to ensure the safety distance. On the other hand, the driver of all the vehicle is prohibited from sudden stop or sudden stop the vehicle unless it is inevitable, such as preventing danger, etc. (Article 19(4) of the Road Traffic Act). In full view of the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, which neglected to secure the safety distance in preparation for the unforeseen situation, and the negligence of the defendant vehicle, which violated the duty to safely drive the vehicle without any justifiable reason.