beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid a gold of KRW 18,531,485 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related thereto from September 7, 2015 to January 11, 2017.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. At around 01:30 on September 7, 2015, B, while driving a CSS5 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”) and driving a two-lane road in front of the second line of the Kunung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, into a two-lane road, the steering gear is cut down and entered the two-lane. The Defendant’s Dsch Rexroths vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”) driving in the same direction with the front wheels of the Plaintiff-owned vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. The Defendant operated the steering gear to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and shocked the retaining wall installed on the side of the road. The Defendant received hospitalized treatment from September 7, 2015 to September 21, 2015, due to the following: (a) the Defendant suffered from the injury of the cerebral lele, urine, and tension, etc. in detail known.
C. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, the insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 490,000,000 for its own automobile accident insurance money at its repair cost due to the instant accident.
【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, in a case where a vehicle changing the course from a one-lane to a two-lane conflict with a vehicle in a two-lane, 30% of the ordinarily recognized comparative negligence shall be recognized by the Defendant’s negligence. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to claim reimbursement of KRW 147,00 for the Defendant’s negligence out of KRW 490,000 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
In the first line, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was the first line, and the Defendant’s vehicle was the second line. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at a speed, and the second line was changed to the second line. The Defendant’s vehicle violated its duty at the front line.