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 Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
On July 27, 2018, the defendant's vehicle running a two-lane of the two-lane in the front of the building E in the Suwon-si District E zone around 01 on July 27, 2018 was changed to a three-lane, and the accident of shocking the plaintiff's vehicle occurred.
On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,590,050 (which is the amount after deducting self-paid expenses from total repair expenses) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case as to the ratio of liability, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.
The Defendant’s vehicle shocked the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front part of the right part.
(A) The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle shall not be able to take any image, etc. of the Defendant’s vehicle.
떼었다 하면서 멈칫멈칫하는 행동만을 보였을 뿐, 오른쪽 방향지시등을 점등하는 등의 방법으로 차로를 변경하겠다는 의사를 명확히 표시하지 아니한 채 갑자기 차로를 변경하였다.
In light of the black image (A, B, 1) the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane to three lanes in a group.
It is difficult to readily conclude that a person has been clearly or clearly subject to restriction.
(1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving a three-lane, changed the two-lane to a three-lane in order to circumventing the vehicle. Therefore, it was difficult to speed the vehicle. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s direction, etc. at the time of changing the lane is unclear. However, even if the direction, etc. was given, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a vehicle driving behind the Defendant’s vehicle, rather than a prior vehicle.