beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles below E vehicles.
B. On February 20, 2019, around 19:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs along the two-lanes of the front road of the G Hospital in the Asia-si F, the two-lanes of the G Hospital, which changed the two-lanes from the three-lanes to the two-lanes, conflict between the left side of the Defendant’s front side and the right side of the Plaintiff
hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"
(C) The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,536,600 as insurance money, excluding the remainder of KRW 500,000,000, out of the total amount of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost due to the instant accident. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that in the accident of this case, the negligence of the defendant vehicle is 100%, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1,536,600 won as the amount of indemnity to the plaintiff who acquired the right to claim damages of the insured by subrogation of the insurer and damages for delay.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant vehicle's fault is at least 30% of the plaintiff vehicle's fault as the defect vehicle increased the speed of the plaintiff vehicle to change its course.
B. The following circumstances, which are considered to comprehensively consider the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the driver of any motor vehicle, when intending to change the course of the motor vehicle is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), shall not change the course when the change of course is likely to obstruct the normal course of the motor vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), and ii the instant accident occurred immediately after the passage through the intersection, and the plaintiff's vehicle