beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 11:10 on January 16, 2014, C, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the front of the D Apartment at Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and making a non-protective meeting to the straight-in signal, C, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle, who was straight-in according to the straight-in signal in front of the E, was shocked by E.
(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.
At the time of the instant traffic accident, the Defendant’s vehicle driven 70km/h (70km) more than 34km/h (104km/h) and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle conflict.
C. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff paid 26,110,000 won to the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle C at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) along with the Plaintiff’s negligence, the instant traffic accident occurred when the Defendant’s driver proceededed in excess of the speed limit and neglected the duty of presentation. As such, 75% negligence regarding the occurrence of the instant traffic accident against the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of indemnity for KRW 19,852,50 equivalent to 75% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s driver as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the damages for delay from January 16, 2014. (2) The Defendant’s traffic accident of this case is attributable to the Defendant’s vehicle, which was normally driven on the Defendant’s vehicle at a two-way lane while the Plaintiff’s vehicle violated the signal to turn to the left.