beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. Around 06:53 on May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the two-lanes in the non-furning direction of the non-furning road in the non-furning, refurning and promoting the speed of the non-furning road, and the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding at the first lane in the same direction, changed the two-lanes to the two-lanes, causing a collision between the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s driver’s seat (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,875,00,000, excluding its own charges, at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 through 9, 11 (including each number), and the purport of whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserted (i.e., the plaintiff, while the defendant's vehicle driving ahead of the plaintiff's vehicle in the first lane has failed to properly verify the plaintiff's vehicle driving ahead of the plaintiff's vehicle, the accident of this case occurred while changing the vehicle into two lanes. This is solely due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant's vehicle, is obliged to pay 8,875,000 won, the total amount of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff, and damages for delay, as a reimbursement.
B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim on the part corresponding to the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle cannot be complied with, as the instant accident occurred, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the Defendant and entered the two-lanes, while proceeding at a rapid speed not to yield the Plaintiff’s concession.
B. (i) Determination;