beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a truck mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. Around 09:41 on April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along a four-lane in the direction of the city near the Seoul metropolitan circulation road located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, and the Defendant’s vehicle traveling along a four-lane line from behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the three-lanes, and the vehicle changed to the four-lanes, with the lower left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear wheels as the lower part of the right-hand part of the front part, and with the shock, the Plaintiff’s vehicle turns to the center separation zone, and then reeasting the center separation zone (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
C. On April 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,000,00 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 11,193,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on April 28, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The accident of this case occurred by shocking the plaintiff's vehicle, which was in progress in the four-lanes without securing the distance between the vehicle and the three-lanes, and due to the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 15,193,00 and the damages for delay thereof in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation by the insurer. 2) The accident of this case was caused by the plaintiff's vehicle driving the vehicle of this case on the four-lanes regardless of the change of the vehicle of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the negligence of the defendant's vehicle does not exceed a maximum of 70%.