1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

Plaintiff

On September 29, 2015, around 19:23, the vehicle proceeded with the second line among the third lines of the third line near Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, and attempted to change the second line with the first one. However, there was an accident (hereinafter “the accident in this case”) that shocks the front side of the Defendant vehicle and the part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle following the second line.

On November 4, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,172,500 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 (if there are additional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 9, issues of the whole pleadings, issues of the purport of the pleading, and the degree of negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case, the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the whole negligence of each other.

Therefore, the issues of this case are the degree of negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant's vehicle that contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of Gap evidence 5 and Eul evidence 9 as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case did not turn on the direction point, etc., but caused the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle that was changed rapidly from the second line to the first line, and the negligence of the defendant's vehicle that was negligent in performing the duty of the frontline and the right and right line, and that the negligence of the plaintiff's and the defendant's vehicle that contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case is 70:30.

No driver of any motor vehicle shall change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change his/her route.