beta
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. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. Around 10:49 on March 10, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was entering the front intersection of the FJ located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection was shocked with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,912,00 as insurance money after deducting KRW 500,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity
A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged prior to the negligence ratio, and the overall purport of Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 5, and 6, are comprehensively taken into account: (i) the point at which the accident occurred, namely, the point at which the accident occurred, is an intersection where traffic is not controlled, ascertaining whether there is another vehicle to enter the intersection at a speed, stop at a speed, and stop at the intersection, and does not have any other vehicle; and (ii) if there is no other vehicle, both the plaintiff and the defendant are negligent in performing the above duty of care; (iii) the vehicle is presumed to have entered the intersection before around 0.85 seconds of the plaintiff vehicle, but it is presumed that the driver had not entered the intersection to the extent that it is difficult for the driver to clearly recognize the after, and (iii) the accident speed of the vehicle immediately preceding the accident of this case was presumed to have been 27km-39mh/hh, Defendant 25m or 25m of the vehicle.