구상금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for Cenched Car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for D truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. Around 19:20 on June 10, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) changed the course from the two lanes to the three-lane road in front of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul; and (b) obstructed the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left rear side.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 16,390,000 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The accident of this case occurred on the wind that the driver of the defendant vehicle who claimed to be the plaintiff had stopped while changing course. Since the accident of this case occurred entirely by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the sum of 16,390,000 won including the replacement of the front driver.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in school in the future, and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver is more than 30%.
In addition, the instant accident caused damage to the Plaintiff’s right pent, and thus, 10,055,637 won exceeding 6,334,363 won out of the repair cost paid by the Plaintiff, is not repair cost due to the instant accident.
3. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have been temporarily stopped at the time of the instant accident, and ② On the other hand, the Defendant’s driver was able to change the course from the two lanes to the one lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked.