구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On September 28, 2017, at around 20:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, along the three-lanes of the road located in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, was running from the main three-lane boundary to the Do forest shooting distance. While the two-lanes of the same road were changed from the same two-lanes to the three-lanes, there was an accident where the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle and the two-lanes of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,736,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion that the accident of this case occurred by the former negligence of the defendant's driver who attempted to change the lane in a unreasonable manner, while the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle also is negligent in proceeding with the defendant's vehicle that tried to change the lane without reducing the speed, while the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle found the defendant's vehicle that tried to change the lane, and the rate of negligence is 40%.
3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above fact-finding and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① in the case of changing a lane, the surrounding situation should be carefully examined so as not to impede the normal passage of other vehicles entering the same direction at the same lane (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), Defendant vehicle attempted to change the lane without sufficient distance with the Plaintiff vehicle going straight straight from the rear bank (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). ② Meanwhile, at the time of the instant accident, Defendant vehicle entered the three-lane by turning the direction direction into the right side, and entered the three-lane.