구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the mutual aid association that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 15:00 on January 4, 2019, C operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle and continued to make a right-hand turn from G NN in front of Daejeon Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, to G NF, with the right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand right-hand
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,500,000, and KRW 399,300, and KRW 1,899,300 on February 26, 2019, with insurance proceeds, including medical expenses, etc. of C arising from the instant accident.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the argument 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle moved to the right line exclusively for the right line without signal, etc., and the instant accident is a conflict between the Defendant’s vehicle entering the right line and the right line, and thus, the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle constitutes 40%. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 759,720 and the damages for delay. 2) The Defendant’s vehicle operated normally under the name of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle fell into the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the wind of stopping at the right line immediately before the Defendant’s vehicle, and there was no negligence on the Defendant’s vehicle driver.
B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed based on the above basic facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the instant accident was the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant.