1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a business bus mutual aid agreement with respect to B bus (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant bus”).

Around 07:00 on October 31, 2016, Defendant bus tried to change the bus lanes into three lanes and four lanes in order to stop at a bus stops while driving along the two lanes near the 4-lanes in the city of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu., the Seoul Metropolitan City. However, a person who has already waiting for a bus but has already moved on the four-lanes and stopped at the middle of the two-lanes and three-lanes without entering the bus stops.

Plaintiff

The vehicle was in progress following the Defendant bus at the time when the Defendant bus runs along the two-lanes, but the Defendant bus stopped at the middle point of the two-lanes and the two-lanes as above, and when the Defendant bus stops at the two-lanes and three-lanes, in order to overtake the Defendant bus, the part left behind of the Defendant bus in the right side of the Plaintiff bus in the course of changing the vehicle vehicle to the two-lanes.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,629,860 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the parties' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to judgment, the plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case is 70% of the negligence ratio of defendant's bus in relation to the accident of this case, when the plaintiff's vehicle, which was normally driven at the three-lane, changed the vehicle from the two-lane to the three-lane, was parked in the two-lane and the three-lane stoped vehicle.

In this regard, even though the Defendant changed the bus line by slowly driving the Defendant bus, the instant accident occurred in the course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle operating hand to the left-hand side in order to leave the Defendant bus prior to the occurrence of the instant accident.