구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. With respect to Asi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On November 1, 2016, around 22:20, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) changed the lane to one lane while driving a four-lane road in the vicinity of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Sungnam-si; and (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driving on the one lane, entered the one lane; and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driving on the other lane, did not reduce the speed; (d) there was an accident that conflict with the left rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Due to the instant accident, C was injured by the passenger on the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and on January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid C totaling KRW 629,990 for medical expenses and agreements.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which failed to secure a safe distance even though the Defendant confirmed the Defendant’s vehicle that had already completed the change of the lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s negligence, which led to the collision between the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s negligence and the front-way driver’s negligence. Therefore, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle is 7:3. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 440,993, which is KRW 629,90 for damages paid to the Plaintiff. 2) As the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s negligence without securing a safe distance, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.
B. According to the aforementioned evidence, the time when the instant accident occurred is night, and the Defendant’s vehicle is about 10 seconds from around November 1, 2016 to around 22:20:26 on the same day.