구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings, on the statements and images of Gap evidence 1 to 6, and Eul evidence 1 to 6:
The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).
B. On November 21, 2015, around 11:03, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle: (a) took part of the left part of the parking lot column in the left part of the Plaintiff vehicle entering the port side of the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle entering the direction of the vehicle, which was moving back from the right side of the intersection in the direction of the direction to the Plaintiff vehicle while driving along the passage inside the underground parking lot of the Busan Maritime Daegu Apartment Complex (hereinafter “the first accident in this case”); (b) took part of the parking lot column in the left part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was moving back to the front part of the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident of this case”)
On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,418,800 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant first and second accidents.
2. The gist of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the Defendant’s vehicle temporarily temporarily stops before a right-hand at the intersection in the underground parking lot and takes into account the surrounding conditions, but it is not temporarily stopped, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s course was obstructed by making a right-hand by passing through the intersection without yielding the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle going through the intersection. In addition, even though the Defendant’s vehicle has a duty to turn to the right-hand side at the intersection, it was remarkably bypassing to the beyond the virtual median line. Since the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s abnormal driving, the Plaintiff’s driver erroneously operated the brake system, thereby causing the instant primary accident.
Therefore, this case.