beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. Around 06:10 on January 2, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the road located in the Eup/Myeon in Yangju-si along the two-lanes among the four-lanes, which changed the lanes from the three-lanes of the same road to the two-lanes, and there was an accident that conflict between the part above the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the part behind the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On January 18, 2019, the Plaintiff paid an insurance amount equivalent to KRW 1,868,000 (excluding KRW 200,000 for self-payment) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 9, and Eul’s 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim, are the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant vehicle’s direction direction, etc. while driving nearly in the Plaintiff vehicle and rapidly changing the lane; the Defendant vehicle did not enter the two-lanes and did not enter the front side of the right side, and the Plaintiff vehicle’s driver was overspeeded.
In full view of the fact that the accident in this case occurred due to the total negligence of Defendant vehicle, which violated the duty of safe driving when changing the lane, in light of the following: (a) although it was possible to recognize the direction, etc. of Defendant vehicle, it is reasonable to deem that the accident in this case occurred due to the gross negligence of Defendant vehicle who violated the duty
B. According to the theory of lawsuit, as to the Plaintiff’s indemnity amounting to KRW 1,868,00 and KRW 1,454,400, which is the amount recognized by the first instance court, it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation from January 19, 2019, which is the day following the payment of the insurance money.