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.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings at each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2:
With respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s driver of the instant vehicle was temporarily stopped for the right-of-way transit while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the right-of-way intersection in front of Chuncheon City (hereinafter “the instant road”).
The road in this case is separated from the two straight lanes of the intersection, and is one-lane, and the driver of the defendant vehicle, who moved back from the rear side of the plaintiff vehicle, temporarily stopped on the right side of the plaintiff vehicle, on the ground that it is a space between the right side of the plaintiff vehicle and the right side of the road in this case for the right side.
Plaintiff
The driver of the vehicle re-enters the left-hand part of the Defendant vehicle, which temporarily stopped on the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle in the process of moving the vehicle back to the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.
On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 476,90 in total to repair companies, etc. due to the instant accident.
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the instant accident occurred on the instant road, which is one-way passage of a single lane, because the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a front vehicle and the Defendant’s rear vehicle, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle temporarily stopped on the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but should have followed the Defendant’s rear vehicle. However, it was unreasonable to use the right space of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to make a round prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.