beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 13:50 on April 16, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) driven the central branch line expressway located in Geumsi-si in Yangsan-si on a three-lane road along the three-lane road in the same direction while driving the road along the three-lanes from the middle point of the mass quarter to the dynamic branch of the same quarter; (b) and (c) sought to change the course into three-lane by the Egypt vehicle operating along the two-lanes in the same direction (hereinafter “Skiex vehicle”); (d) the said Loneex vehicle turned down along the two-lanes in the same direction; and (e) the said Lone Star vehicle turned down the course behind the Defendant’s vehicle on a multiple-lane basis.
At this time, the above Lone Star vehicle and Franchi vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "franchi vehicle") which were followed by the same direction are stopped, and the plaintiff vehicle which was followed by the latter was not avoided and dissipateded.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 19,439,340 in total as insurance money for the repair cost of Lone Star Vehicle, KRW 2,575,00, KRW 7,231,80, and KRW 9,632,540 in total for the repair cost of the franchise vehicle, and for the drivers and passengers of the franchise.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the whole negligence of the defendant vehicle, since the driver of the defendant vehicle intentionally supplied the vehicle with the vehicle as a retaliation for the driver of the vehicle of this case without any reason.
In this regard, the defendant can not be operated by the driver of the defendant's vehicle due to the between the driver's own heart and the between the two.