구상금
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).
B. On March 16, 2019, around 12:31, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant Oba, who was directly engaged in a green signal at the intersection near the FE in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along with a green signal.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
By May 27, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,513,300,00, after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Orpy driver had already known the Plaintiff’s vehicle to turn to the right at the intersection, but neglected his duty to turn to the left, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Orpy driver was grossly negligent.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's total negligence since the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle clearly violated the duty of safe driving on the method of signal and intersection traffic and violated the duty of safe driving on the front line.
3. Determination
A. We examine the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned macroscopic evidence, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to conduct a non-protective coordinate at the time of the instant accident, and thus, it should yield the course to the vehicle straightening according to green signal in double Part, and if there is a straight-in vehicle, it shall not enter the intersection. (ii) At the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was ordinarily entering the intersection according to the green signal of Defendant Ortoba at the time. (iii) The Plaintiff’s vehicle is a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to conduct a non-protective coordinate in one way among three-lanes.