beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 347,720 against the Plaintiff, among the judgment of the court of first instance, as to the Defendant, and as to the Plaintiff, from November 21, 2017 to July 6, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the driver of the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. At around 11:20 on August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was left to the right from the two-lane, which is a two-lane right-hand and left-hand turn, among the three-lane roads, and the Defendant’s vehicle was left to the right-hand turn in the direction of a show line. However, the lower part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand side and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right-hand side (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. By November 20, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 695,440 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was making a left-hand turn in the direction of the country of normal defense, but the instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going to the left-hand turn in the direction of the show line without the sea. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was virtually unable to avoid the change of course of the Defendant’s vehicle. In light of the background leading up to the instant accident, etc., the fault ratio of the instant accident ought to be deemed to be 30% on the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 70% on the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, according to the insurer’s subrogation’s legal doctrine, the Defendant amounted to 486,800 won on the instant accident (=695,440 won x
2) The Plaintiff’s vehicle departing from the two-lanes anticipated to proceed in the direction of the interest line to the Gap self-defense station, and the Defendant’s vehicle is obliged to pay the damages for delay.