beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hu98764.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
(a) The facts of recognition (founded: Gap 1, the motion picture, the whole purport of the pleadings) are as follows: the defendant shall set up a car B driving C (hereinafter referred to as "one vehicle").
(1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile, and the Plaintiff is a Darburged vehicle (hereinafter “2 vehicle”).
(2) On August 17, 2014, when the Plaintiff driving a two-lane of 18:40 seconds (bcambling time display standard) on August 17, 2014, and driving a four-lane road in the direction of the city, Jung-gu, Seoul, China, and completing a three-lane change, the non-motor vehicle driven as one-lane in the situation where the first lane is closed due to road construction is rapidly changed into two-lanes, and when the non-motor vehicle driven as one-lane is changing into three-lanes without turning on the direction direction, the Plaintiff attempted the so-called “knific vehicle” while avoiding the non-motor vehicle and changing the two-lane to three-lanes without turning on the direction direction etc.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). 3 On April 24, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking reimbursement of KRW 402,800 with the Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea 98764, and the payment order issued on May 8, 2015 became final and conclusive on June 19, 2015.
B. In full view of the above facts of recognition and the purport of the entire pleadings in the video of the black box, it seems that the driver of a vehicle attempted the so-called “knife” three-lanes to avoid the fire vehicles above, and changed the two-lanes to three-lanes without turning the direction light, and the part of the back part of the two-lanes which already completed the change of course into three-lanes, caused the instant accident, and the two-lanes driven by the plaintiff at the time are likely to have completed the change of course into three-lanes.
The defendant, who is the insurer of one vehicle driver, can only seek a reimbursement against the driver of the vehicle in question, and two vehicles.