1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B car (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

On December 22, 2015, around 19:57, the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the first line of the Do road in the vicinity of the Songbuk-ri, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, who was driving along the front line of the road was caused by the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) involving the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was rhyd from the right side of the road towards the center of the road.

On November 24, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 9,994,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the instant accident.

[Based on the recognition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was responsible for the instant accident as to the images and the entire purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the pleading. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s vehicle was entirely responsible for the instant accident since the Plaintiff’s vehicle failed to stop, even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle had obstructed a road by driving a considerable part of the road, and the instant accident occurred by driving the Plaintiff vehicle as it was.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant is partially responsible for the plaintiff's vehicle that entered the road from the frontline of the defendant's vehicle to the sudden back of the road and failed to operate emergency lights.

Judgment

A driver who operates a vehicle has a duty to safely proceed by checking the front left well well, and in particular, if it is difficult to pass the vehicle on the front door due to the relationship in which the vehicle has already obstructed the passage for parking, moving-out, etc., he/she shall stop and check whether it is possible to pass the vehicle on the front.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant vehicle is in line with the lane by blocking more than half of the driving lanes in the process of moving the plaintiff vehicle to the rear.