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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
At around 14:29 on February 24, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the two lanes from the first lane in the direction, direction, direction, etc., to the second lane in the vicinity of the Joh Chang-gun, Changwon-gun, Gowon-gun, the Gowon-gun, the Gowon-gun, the Gowon-gun, the Gowon-gun, the Gowon-gun, and the subsequent vehicle operated thereafter, conflict with the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). On March 13, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,534,740 as insurance proceeds, deducting KRW 500,00 from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] The statements and images of Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred from the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately following the change of the vehicle line, the Defendant shall pay KRW 2,534,740, which is the total insurance money, to the Plaintiff.
B. (1) In other words, the driver of any motor vehicle shall make a signal at a distance of not less than 100 meters before reaching the point where it is intended to change course on an expressway, and shall not make a sudden stop or sudden stop of the motor vehicle unless there is any inevitable reason, such as the prevention of danger on an expressway, etc., the defendant's vehicle has entered the two-lane without any signal, and the defendant's vehicle has entered the two-lane, and there is an error of rapidly reducing the speed without any significant traffic obstacle on the front side of the entry lane (Article 38 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 21 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Traffic Act, and Articles 21 (2) and 19 (4) of the same Act), while the plaintiff's vehicle was also followed by the change of the vehicle line of the defendant's vehicle.