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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff-owned vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement for automobile damage compensation with respect to B chartered bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).
B. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff-owned vehicle: (a) avoided the Defendant bus that was parked on the primary line of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the river in order to enter into the primary line of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the river; (b) there was a traffic accident where the front part of the vehicle for which the Plaintiff-owned vehicle was parked in the front of the end of the end of the end of the end of the vehicle, and the front part of the vehicle was located in the opposite lane of the end of the end of the vehicle (hereinafter “victim”).
C. From December 8, 2016 to December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 15,964,510, totaling KRW 15,964,510, and KRW 1,603,830, and KRW 210,780, as the medical expenses of the victim on January 2, 2017, respectively, with the medical expenses of the victim from December 8, 2016 to December 30, 2016.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred while the defendant bus, a large bus, occupies at least 3/4 of the first line road without using headlights, sidelightss, tail lightss, etc. at night, and the plaintiff's vehicle is trying to make a right-hand by negligence on the part of illegal parking. Thus, the negligence ratio of the defendant bus is at least 30%. 2) The defendant asserted that the defendant bus was parked in a white solid line and parked in a place where it is possible to park, and the accident in this case is just without examining the right-hand side in entering the road.