beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 72,00,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses from January 19, 2016 to June 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 19, 2015, at around 18:25, F driven a Csi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and proceeded along the intersection of a private distance without any signal apparatus installed in front of the B site A located in Gunsan-si at the entrance of an international cultural village at the vicinity of the area of the international culture village along one lane, and turn to the left at the intersection of the Amera road at a point of 8.2 meters ahead of the said intersection, the C Driving a two-lane (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) of G driving (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with the two-lanes of the opposite one lane, and died of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the network”) due to the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff vehicle, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle
C. On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 360,000,000 insurance money to the bereaved family members of the Deceased.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 11 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s accident of this case had discovered in advance that the Defendant’s driver, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, was at the speed of 60 km a speed exceeding 73 km per hour, the Defendant’s vehicle, a two-wheeled vehicle, should proceed along the two-lane a speed of 73 km, the Defendant’s vehicle, a two-wheeled vehicle, should proceed along the two-lane a speed, but failed to pass through the intersection where the signal apparatus was not installed or temporarily stop, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle should have avoided and proceeded to turn to the left at the center. However, the Plaintiff’s negligence, such as the negligence neglected to do so, and the Defendant’s vehicle’s failure to turn to the left to the left.