beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).
B. Around 15:30 on November 19, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who driven the Defendant vehicle and driven along the lane to the second-class Highway (Seoul), adjacent to the 48-lane in the parallel of the two-lanes on the said expressway in order to combine the two-lanes on the two-lanes on the said expressway while driving along the lane to the main lane, the driver of the Defendant vehicle conflict with the front part of the Plaintiff’s right side of the Defendant vehicle, driving along the same lane on the same lane.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 576,600, totaling KRW 576,600,00 on December 29, 2016, and KRW 160,60 on March 8, 2017, with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 5 through 8, Eul 2 through 6 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the previous negligence that led the driver of the defendant vehicle to overtake the plaintiff vehicle, while driving along the access lane behind the right side of the plaintiff vehicle, and changed rapidly in the plaintiff vehicle in the future. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.
(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident is that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle should be limited to 70%, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not yield a safe distance to prevent the entry of the Defendant vehicle; (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle, prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s entry lane where the alteration of course is possible; and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s failure to yield a safe distance to the Plaintiff’s vehicle;
(b).