beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
B. On July 3, 2018, around 19:51, the Plaintiff’s vehicle directed the second floor of the G-dong parking lot of the F Hospital G-dong in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and attempted to make a round to enter the first floor into the right-hand right-hand direction.
The entry road into the first floor is divided into an entry lane by the center boundary line, and even if the opposite lane is not invaded, the width of each lane is wide to the extent that vehicle traffic is possible, and the two floors are installed in the right side of the second floor in the direction of the first floor.
피고 차량은 위 주차장 1층 진출입로의 반대차로를 침범하여 전조등을 켠 채 왼쪽으로 올라가다가 피고 차량의 조수석 앞부분으로 원고 차량의 조수석 옆부분을 충격하였다
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The instant accident occurred in KRW 1,668,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On July 12, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,335,000, deducting KRW 333,000 for the Plaintiff’s self-charges (=1,68,000 won - 333,000 won).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. (1) The party's assertion (1) The boundary line is set up in the center of the part of the first floor entry road of the instant parking lot, so the Defendant's vehicle is driving on the right side of the entrance road, but the instant accident occurred by putting the boundary line on the right side of the entry road, and thus, the Defendant's vehicle was negligent prior to the occurrence of the instant accident to the Defendant's driver.
(2) The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle may find out the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle if he had performed his duty of care in front of the week.