beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,170,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 26, 2016 to May 16, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AA car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B cab (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On December 28, 2015, around 16:30 on December 28, 2015, when the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the said vehicle and passed a two-lane road in front of the Dongdong New Industries High School in Busan, there was an accident in which the two-lanes of the said road stopped at the edge of the said two-lane road and the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle seeking a U-turn beyond the central line and the front right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s front vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. The instant accident destroyed the Plaintiff’s vehicle to cover KRW 21,300,000 for repair costs, and the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the repair cost to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle, and thus, it cannot be said that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle has a duty of care to drive the defendant's vehicle with the duty of care to anticipate that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle can make an illegal internship. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's insurance money in full to the plaintiff as a reimbursement, and that if the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle thoroughly performs the duty of the driver of the vehicle in front, the accident
3. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments on the above recognized facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 9, and video, the accident of this case does not properly examine whether the defendant vehicle driver stops at the edge of two lanes, and whether there is a vehicle directly driven at the back of two lanes.