beta
Text
The defendant's 28,23,00 won to the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from January 31, 2020 to January 26, 2021.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E-vehicle owned by the Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to F Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
B. Around 07:49 on January 7, 2020, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the H hospital located in G and moved straight along the two-lanes of the I company’s Eastern Road in the direction of the I company, and the Defendant’s previous vehicle driving the first lane changed into two-lanes of the vehicle. (hereinafter “the instant accident”). C. The Defendant’s back part of the Defendant’s vehicle was concealed into the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
On January 30, 2020, the Plaintiff calculated the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at a higher level than the appraised value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and paid KRW 31,370,000 (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 6,380,000 from the total loss amount of KRW 37,750,000) to the Plaintiff’s assistant participant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's entries or videos, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the occurrence of liability for damages, recognition of restriction, and evidence revealed earlier, the accident in this case neglected the movement of the vehicle in the same direction so as not to obstruct the passage of the vehicle in the same direction when changing the vehicle, while neglecting the duty of care to safely change the vehicle, and caused the negligence of the driver of the Defendant vehicle who changed the vehicle rapidly without any signal of change of course. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff vehicle for the damages caused by the accident in this case.
However, the accident occurred at the time of the accident, and the location of the accident was down, and the vehicle was fixed on the front side, so the participant who was the Plaintiff’s assistant should have been driven by breaking the vehicle while looking at the flow of the vehicle.