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..
At the time of the accident, there is a conflict between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the expressway, which was driven in two lanes near the Gyeongcheon-gun Office of the Gyeongcheon-gun, in the vicinity of the Gyeongcheon-gun Office of the Gyeongcheon-gun on September 1, 2017 at the time of the accident, and the situation of the collision between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven in two lanes in the vicinity of the Gyeongcheon-gun Office of the Gyeongcheon-gun Office of the Gyeongcheon-gun, and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle to enter the expressway. After the collision, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, after the collision, was 9.5 million won of the insurance money paid to the right road, and the payment of the insurance money paid to the Defendant’s vehicle as the collateral for physical damage compensation insurance on October 20, 2017, the fact that there is no dispute over the background of the accident in this case [based], Gap evidence No. 17, and No. 15-3
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s Defendant’s vehicle attempted to enter the seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the rooftop rest area and the expressway access area rapidly, thereby obstructing the course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that had been driving in the top two-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was trying to avoid this.
Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of Defendant vehicle.
B. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s vehicle had entered the highway, and had entered the highway normally on the two-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle neglected to stop on the front road, and was found late to find the Defendant’s vehicle and received the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle, leading to the right side of the road.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is unreasonable since the instant accident occurred from the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the original Defendant’s vehicle in the instant accident is 30% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 70% of the Defendant’s vehicle.
① The point where the instant accident occurred (the point where two vehicles are first faced) was located near two-lanes prior to the completion of the entry section or the entry section to the expressway as alleged by the Plaintiff, or as alleged by the Defendant.