구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the owner D with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
D On November 14, 2018, around 09:35, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s E-Motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”) that was seeking to enter the intersection from the west to the south and proceed to the south by moving the intersection from the west of Twit-type intersection (the east exists, the signal apparatus was not installed, and all of the access road surface on the 3rd place is obstructed; hereinafter referred to as “instant intersection”). At the said point, the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”) that was trying to enter the said intersection from the north to the south and go to the south. At the said point, the back door of the right side of the Plaintiff’s E-motor vehicle and the back pent part were shocked with the part of the left pentle portion of the Plaintiff’s front one.
(hereinafter referred to as “first collision.” The Plaintiff’s vehicle is fast to the right side by its shock, and the part left side of the GF-owned G-owned vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) that was parked in a shape that prevents the Plaintiff’s right side of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the second collision,” and the first collision is referred to as “the instant accident”). At the time of the instant accident, the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s proceeding, the location of the damaged vehicle’s parking, the point of collision, the point of collision, and the final stop location, etc. are as indicated in the approximate drawings.
On November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 389,800 won for repairing damaged vehicles to F.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff's accident of this case occurred concurrently between D and the defendant's negligence, and the ratio of each negligence shall be 60% and 40%, respectively. The plaintiff is the insurer of D and F as the insurer of D. 389.