Text
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.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the C company for D buses (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract for the E-vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On November 17, 2016, around 08:52 on November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving 5 lanes, which are the bus exclusive lanes, from among the five-lane roads in front of the land bridge of G Schools located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju.
The Defendant’s vehicle, while driving along the four-lanes of the above road, changed the lane from the four-lane to the five-lanes in order to enter the two-lanes into the two-lanes, followed the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and shocked the part of the driver’s seat corner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the side following the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
Due to the instant accident, passengers aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered injuries.
The Defendant paid 42,085,680 won in total with respect to the instant accident.
The Defendant filed a request with the H Committee to deliberate on a dispute over indemnity related to the instant accident, and the said Committee assessed the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to 2:8, and decided to deliberate on and coordinate the Plaintiff’s order to pay 8,417,136 won (=42,085,680 won x 0.2) to the Defendant.
E. On July 6, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,417,136 to the Defendant according to the above decision of deliberation and coordination.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As to the negligence ratio of the instant accident, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by integrating the aforementioned facts recognized and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle rapidly changed the lane from four lanes to five lanes, and ② the Plaintiff’s vehicle is five lanes, which are the bus exclusive lanes pursuant to the new subparagraph.