beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On May 27, 2016, around 11:50 on May 27, 2016, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the five-lane national highways in front of the D points located in Busan East-gu, Busan-do, along the two-lanes, the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the four-lane speeded rapidly to the first-lane in order to drive a U-turn, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs in the future, and there was an accident that conflicts with the part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the part on the right side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 273,000 (excluding self-charges 200,000) as insurance money under the pretext of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings
2. As can be seen by the above facts of recognition and the evidence of the macroscopic, the driver of the Defendant Vehicle changed the two lanes in a more unreasonable way than the Plaintiff Vehicle, and the driver of the Defendant Vehicle changed the course from the four lanes to the one lane in succession without impeding the flow of traffic in the lane to enter. However, the driver of the Defendant Vehicle changed the course from the four lanes to the one lane in succession. Such negligence of the driver of the Defendant Vehicle caused the instant accident.
On the other hand, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is negligent in not preventing the accident by disclosing the direction of left-hand side by neglecting the duty of front-way and left-hand side, and finding the defendant vehicle late to change its course. Thus, the responsibility of the driver of the defendant vehicle is limited to 70% in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the circumstances of the accident in this case, the degree and degree of the collision of both vehicles, road conditions at the time of the accident, etc.
However, the plaintiff.