구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 21, 2017, around 15:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven at a one-lane of the two-lane road at the upper south-dong intersection in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si and passed through the intersection in accordance with green signal, etc., the accident occurred where the Defendant’s vehicle driving at the two-lane of the opposite direction, among the two-lane roads, makes a left-hand turn to the right-hand turn for the protection of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the vehicle driving at the first lane, and the front driver of the Defendant’s vehicle conflict with each other.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
On September 12, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,090,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, except for KRW 500,000,000 for the insured’s self-payment.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to Article 25(2) of the Road Traffic Act regarding the instant accident, when intending to turn to the left at the intersection, the driver of any motor vehicle shall go slowly along the intersection along the center line of the road in advance and turn to the left, and in particular, the motor vehicle that makes a left-hand turn to the left is obliged to turn to the left safely so as not to impede the traffic flow of the opposite vehicle.
According to the above facts of recognition, the driver of the defendant vehicle is driving another vehicle in the first lane in violation of the above duty, and the driver of the defendant vehicle took the left-hand turn from the second lane to the left-hand turn, and the plaintiff vehicle that was not faced with this conflict with the defendant vehicle. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.
Therefore, the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle is recognized as 100%.
B. The fact that the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, who is the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 3,090,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle is as seen earlier. Accordingly, the Defendant vehicle driver is out of the above KRW 3,090,000.