구상금
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.
At the time of the accident, around 12:10 on November 19, 2018, at the time of the insured vehicle CD of the Plaintiff insured vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of road collision near the Seoul E department distance entered the two lanes among the five lanes of the instant road bypassing from the lawsuit in the vicinity of the instant road. The Defendant’s vehicle parked in the first two lanes among the five lanes of the instant road. While the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the first two lanes, the left side of the right side of the Defendant vehicle and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle paid insurance money with the shocked amount of KRW 1,193,300 (self-motor vehicle damage).
B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 40:60, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 635,980 won.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 5, 7 evidence and Eul evidence 3
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Although the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle entered the two-lanes of the five-lanes of the instant road, the instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle did not look at the movement of the Plaintiff vehicle in violation of Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act and changed the course from the first to the second two-lane, and thus, the instant accident was entirely caused by the negligence of Defendant’s vehicle.
B. According to the evidence No. 3 and evidence No. 3, the driver of any motor vehicle in accordance with Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act is obligated not to change the course when it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of other motor vehicles running in the direction of change in the course of the motor vehicle. However, the defendant's vehicle stops on the one-lane of the five-lanes of the road of this case without properly examining the movement of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the driver of any motor vehicle in this case has not changed the course to the two-lanes of the road of this case.