구상금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.
2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On June 12, 2016, around 14:24, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along the two lanes near D Hospital located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the three-lane road, and was changing the three-lane. However, the Defendant’s vehicle, behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was driving along the two-lanes in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the three-lane lines to the three-lanes immediately before the Plaintiff’s change of the vehicle, shocked the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle into the front side of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving on the three-lanes.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,096,310,00 in total, from July 1, 2016 to March 10, 2017, at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. While the Plaintiff’s vehicle confirmed that it does not seem to run on the three-lanes, and the vehicle line was changed by securing a safety distance, the Defendant’s vehicle was speeded and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was found and did not take action to stop, and thus the instant accident occurred, the Defendant’s liability for the instant accident lies entirely on the Defendant’s vehicle.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the claim with the indemnity money.
B. The Plaintiff’s vehicle did not properly verify whether the other vehicle is proceeding with the other vehicle prior to the change of the vehicle line, and as the instant accident occurred due to the change of the vehicle’s own car line, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the instant accident reaches 60%.
3. Determination
A. The evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings mentioned above are based on the facts of the above recognition.