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 is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

Plaintiff

차량은 2019. 2. 15. 08:40경 서울 영등포구 E에 있는 F조합 앞 ‘ㅓ’자형 삼거리 교차로에서 좌회전하여 2차로로 진행하던 중, 원고 차량에 앞서 1차로에서 진행하다가 2차로에 갑자기 진입하는 피고 차량을 피하려다가 우측 노외 시설물을 충격하였다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,278,870 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] Entry No. 3, Gap evidence No. 5, the video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the occurrence of liability for damages and the ratio of liability, as a whole, based on the above facts and the above evidence, the instant accident took place concurrently with the principal negligence and the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff, who violated the duty of care of career change, and the duty of compliance with slowly and safe distance, and it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio as 70:30.

At the time of the accident in this case, snow is scattered and snow around the road was not a green belt, and part of the road was found.

It is reasonable to view that the principal negligence of violating the duty of care for career change exists to the driver of the defendant vehicle without using the direction light, while changing the lane from the first lane to the second lane.

On the other hand, despite the weather and surface conditions as above, the driver of the Plaintiff's vehicle has changed from one lane to two lanes in order to turn to the left through the cross-distance intersection.