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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On December 25, 2018, around 06:40, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was driving two lanes along the two-lanes in front of the G Bank located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Bank, was changed to the first line, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the change of the two-lane, caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On January 4, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,146,00,000, except for KRW 500,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s assertion provided the cause of the instant accident by giving an urgent stop without any justifiable reason after not properly examining the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was straightened in the first lane, and then immediately changing the lane. As such, the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident is at least 50%. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle could have sufficiently discovered the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the vehicle in the front section, despite having been able to have sufficiently discovered the vehicle in the front section, she neglected to perform the duty of the front direction, thereby leading the Defendant’s vehicle at the latest. Therefore, the instant accident is entirely caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
B. Determination 1: (a) The Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident is considerably different from the Defendant’s vehicle; and (b) despite the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle could sufficiently be aware of the change of the vehicle, it appears that it failed to appropriately reduce the speed or not operate the brake. Therefore, the instant accident occurred.