beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs after the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).
B. On March 29, 2014, at around 20:04, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the four-lanes of the four-lane road near the Young-dong Highway where the second coast and the Young-dong Highway are combined, into the Incheon bank, and the three-lanes of the four-lanes of the roads are changed to the third-lanes, resulting in the collision between the two-lanes in front of the right side of the Defendant bus, driving the three-lanes in the same direction as the other side, and the two-lanes of the Plaintiff bus, following the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. By May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 3,392,160 (= KRW 654,090, KRW 720,570, KRW 654,090, KRW 763,410, KRW 600, KRW 763,000, KRW 763,410, and KRW 600) to four other persons, who were on board the Defendant bus with insurance proceeds.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, the whole purport of the pleading [Evidence of Evidence] Nos. 1 and 2 (No one believe that the unilateral statement of the defendant bus driver or that it was made on the basis thereof)
2. The assertion and judgment
A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had changed the Plaintiff’s vehicle from four lanes to three lanes. Defendant bus drivers, who followed the Plaintiff’s bus, did not yield the instant accident to the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking the change of the bus line in breach of the duty of safety driving, and the Defendant’s negligence is at least 30%. On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident was at least 30%, while the Defendant stopped on the three lanes due to the vehicle’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the three lanes, and the vehicle was at the time of changing the vehicle lanes from four lanes to three lanes.