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.

Basic Facts

With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the B cargo vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

On February 6, 2018, around 11:10, at the National Road No. 17th in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, the Defendant vehicle driven along the two lanes in the latter and the Plaintiff vehicle in the latter side according to one lane. However, while the Defendant vehicle did not turn on the direction direction, etc. and changed the vehicle to a one-lane, the Plaintiff vehicle driven along the above mentioned above conflict with the front part of the Defendant vehicle with the left part of the Defendant vehicle while changing the vehicle to a one-lane, and the Plaintiff vehicle in the Defendant vehicle continued to take the center separation zone of the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). As the Plaintiff’s vehicle was considerably damaged due to the instant accident, on March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,380,000,000 as total loss insurance money to the Dolman Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Stock Co., Ltd.”) which is the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s vehicle is entirely responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident, since the instant accident occurred without examining whether the Defendant’s vehicle had a vehicle driven on the first lane without turning on the direction, etc., and without checking whether the vehicle was driven on the first lane, the Plaintiff asserts that the responsibility for the occurrence of the accident lies entirely on the Defendant’s vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant vehicle attempted to change the vehicle line along the distance from the plaintiff vehicle to the first lane, but the plaintiff vehicle neglected the speed of the vehicle and neglected the front line, thereby conflicting the defendant vehicle. Therefore, the plaintiff vehicle is also responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

Judgment

According to the above facts and evidence, the road in which the accident of this case occurred is a national highway of 80 kilometers of limited speed, and the plaintiff.