1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are both insurers. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are the insurers who concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A to the low-priced vehicles owned by them (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the automobile insurance contract with the Defendant for the rocketing vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On February 24, 2016, around 07:45, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered a three-lane road in front E in Jeju Island (hereinafter “instant road”), the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding along the two-lanes of the instant road in front of the instant vehicle located in the front side of the Plaintiff, did not avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and then came to the following (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The speed of the Defendant’s vehicle immediately before the instant accident was revealed to have exceeded 106.87km/h as a result of the appraisal by the Road Traffic Authority, and 70km/h of the said road, 36.87km/h.

A demanded the Plaintiff to pay the amount of insurance money equivalent to the repair cost according to the special agreement secured by his/her own vehicle, and on March 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 2,811,000 won remaining after deducting the amount of 500,000 won from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an accident subsequent to the delay of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s negligence is 100%. As such, the Defendant is obligated to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement based on the insurer subrogation right under Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act regarding the total insurance amount of KRW 2,81,000 paid by the Plaintiff to A.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s vehicle’s speed immediately preceding the instant accident exceeded 36.87km/h of the instant road, as to negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident, and the Defendant’s vehicle was more likely to avoid drilling if the Defendant’s vehicle complies with the restricted speed at the time.