손해배상
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the driver of Dgol-XG vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the owner and driver of E B B Bunch 2.0 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the Defendant vehicle.
B. On March 18, 2018, around 10:05, the Plaintiff moved the second line road near the Busan East-gu Busan Metropolitan City Busan Metropolitan Area into the G hotel room, and the second line from the first lane to the second lane, the Defendant vehicle, which was stopped in the direction of driving on the right side of the second lane, entered the front section of the Defendant vehicle and entered the second lane, and the second part of the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle was shocked by the front part of the front part of the left side of the Defendant vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 960,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff was in the normal operation method, and the Defendant, while stopping on the roadside, did not properly look at the front line and did not immediately look at the front line, and caused the Plaintiff’s change from the first lane to the second lane. Thus, the instant accident was entirely caused by the Defendant’s negligence.
Therefore, as a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, the defendant is obligated to compensate for 960,000 won for damages equivalent to the automobile repair cost suffered by the plaintiff due to the above accident.
B. The accident of this case occurred as the defendant and the defendant, who temporarily stops on the right side of the two-lanes, and runs slowly again, but rather, the accident of this case occurred with the wind that the plaintiff attempted to change the lanes rapidly from the first lane to the second lane, and therefore there is no fault of the defendant in the occurrence of the accident.
3. Determination A.