beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On May 8, 2017, at around 13:47, the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) an accident that conflicts the left side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the left side part of the Defendant’s vehicle with the five-lane change from the four-lane road to the five-lane road in the Gangnam Police Station at the location where the Gangnam Police Stationside road and the water-IC bank road adjoined to the Hannam Police Station, among the roads adjacent to the Hannam River General Development Memorial-dong (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 21,769,500 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred by the former negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who tried to change the lane in a unreasonable manner without using the direction direction direction, etc., while the defendant tried to change the lane with sufficient time to turn on the direction direction, etc., but rather, the plaintiff's driver tried to change the lane. The plaintiff's fault is not attributable to finding the defendant vehicle that the driver of the vehicle of this case tried to change the lane, and the rate of negligence is 20%.
3. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the above recognition facts and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① in the case of changing a lane, the surrounding situation should be carefully examined so as not to impede the normal passage of other vehicles running in the same direction at the same lane (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), and the Defendant’s vehicle is likely to interfere with the passage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running directly from the rear bank.