beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The circumstances of the instant accident are as follows.
At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Defendant Insured Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) CD date and October 30, 2017 is the same as the drawings and photographs attached to the situation of the collision of Dongjak-dong Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul, Dongjak-gu, Seoul at the location of October 30, 2017.
On May 21, 2018, the result of the deliberation by the committee for deliberation on the dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance in which the Defendant’s insurance amount was paid KRW 3.4 million, the insured self-paid car damage amounting to KRW 500,000,000,000,000, the Defendant rendered a decision that the percentage of the Plaintiff’s driver’s liability is 10%. Accordingly, on June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 390,000 (the insurance amount paid by the Defendant as the repair cost of the Defendant 3.4 million) x 1
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 4, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff's allegation that the accident of this case occurred by negligence of one of the defendant vehicle. Thus, the defendant shall return to the plaintiff 3,90,000 won paid according to the result of deliberation by the committee for deliberation of dispute
Since the accident of this case occurred by negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, there is no unjust enrichment that the defendant should return to the plaintiff.
Judgment
In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged as above and the evidence mentioned above, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle continued to stand the lane from three lanes to two lanes without a direction direction light, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving the two lanes thereafter, even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered part of the two lanes, and the instant accident occurred, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident is likely that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle was concurrent, and that “the Plaintiff = 25% : 75% : 75%.”
On the other hand, the defendant's insurance proceeds of this case.