구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.
On November 16, 2017, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD, the Defendant’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s association member, driving at the same time as the two-lane road collision situation in E-do located in E-si, and stopping at the same time after changing the two-lane to the two-lane, the instant accident occurred that conflict between the two-lane of the Defendant’s vehicle and the two-lane. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driving at the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which had been driving at the same time as the two-lane of the two-lane road. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the payment of the insurance money was made at KRW 2,474,50 G 4,94,00 KRW 2,245,810 KRW 1,683,00 J. 710,080 in total, KRW 12,108,260 in total, the payment date of the insurance money, and the payment date of the insurance money.
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's vehicle driven along the first lane, while changing the course into the second lane for the passenger at a bus stop without a bus stop indication, and caused the plaintiff's vehicle driving at normal intervals at the second lane to shock the rear of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the accident in this case occurred both the plaintiff's vehicle's negligence and the negligence of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant's vehicle, is obliged to pay the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 30% of the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle out of the above insurance to the plaintiff who acquired the victim's right to claim compensation by subrogation by paying insurance money equivalent to medical expenses and agreement amount in accordance with the automobile insurance clause.
3. In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the entire purport of the arguments is as follows: ① the Defendant’s vehicle runs along one lane on the two-lane road located in the E-City at the time of the accident and changed the course into the two-lane; ② the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs along the two-lane road at the time of the change of the above-lane, with a considerable distance from the rear edge of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the change of the two-lane.