1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from February 9, 2015 to March 21, 2017.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with respect to E and F vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

E, around 02.02.09.17:20, after driving the instant vehicle, the front part of the Jwing Truck driven by the Defendant, who was on the part of HJ’s office from the room of HJ certified judicial scrivener office to I while moving into the front part of the instant vehicle at the front part of the instant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] According to the above-mentioned facts as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and as to the existence of the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff who entered into an insurance contract with E is liable for damages of the defendant caused by the instant accident.

Unlike the fault of the perpetrator, the negligence in offsetting the fault of the victim in the tort of liability limitation claim shall be deemed to refer to the weak meaning required for community life according to the social common sense or the good faith principle, unlike the fault of the perpetrator.

(대법원 1997. 12. 9. 선고 97다43086 판결 참조). 앞서 제시한 증거들에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되거나 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실 또는 사정들, 즉 ① 이 사건 사고가 발생한 도로는 편도 1차로와 중앙선 없는 도로가 교차하는 ‘ㅜ’ 자형 삼거리 교차로로서 피고가 진행하던 방향 도로 양쪽으로 차량이 주차되어 있어 차량 소통이 상당히 혼잡한 점, ② 이러한 형편에 있는 도로를 운행하는 운전자로서는 서행하면서 전방을 주시하여 자신의 진행방향으로 진입하는 자동차가 있는지 여부를 제대로 확인하여야 하는 점, ③ 그럼에도 피고는 진행방향으로 우회전하는 원고의 차량을 확인하지 못하였던 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 사고 발생에...