beta
Text
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.
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 an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On October 6, 2016, around 16:55, at the point of 70km in the area of Jinju-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Busan National Highway, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed from the two-lane to the one-lane in the two-lane. On October 6, 2016, at the point of 70km in the area of the Busan National Highway, there was an accident in which the part of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was the direct driving along the two-lane, would be adjacent to the one-lane and the two-lane, and the two-lanes of the two-lane, the Defendant vehicle was urgently faced with the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 5,96,000,000, after deducting the self-charges of KRW 49,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) the Defendant’s vehicle was a sudden change without a career change signal, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was operated to avoid this; however, the vehicle was out of the driver’s control by breaking the vehicle on the left and right side.
The accident of this case was caused by the total negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.
(2) At the time the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change the lane, it was difficult to expect that the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding in the latter part of the two lanes, would rapidly change the lane into one lane.
The defendant's vehicle tried to change the lane, but it does not actually exceed the vehicle line, and the plaintiff's vehicle operated the vehicle's vehicle excessively and excessively hand the vehicle's vehicle's change and speeded, so the vehicle's body is shaking and the central separation zone becomes the vehicle's vehicle.