beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following portions:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the seeable Vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant Vehicles B (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).
B. On December 7, 2014, around 18:27, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven along the side road without a median line of D in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon, while entering the intersection without signal lights, the driver of the Defendant vehicle collisioned the front wheel of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle, who left to the port from the right side of the direction of the course.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
By January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,017,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 1 through 3, video (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The driver of any motor vehicle who intends to drive the motor vehicle into the intersection where traffic ratio is not controlled shall yield the course of the other motor vehicle when the other motor vehicle is already traveling into the intersection (Article 26(1) of the Road Traffic Act), the other motor vehicle shall slowly, if the width of the intersection is wider than that of the road where the motor vehicle is traveling, and if there is another motor vehicle that intends to drive the intersection from a road with a wide width, he/she shall yield the course to the intersection (Article 26(2) of the Road Traffic Act). The driver of any motor vehicle who intends to drive the motor vehicle simultaneously into the intersection shall yield the course to the right road (Article 26(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In this case, the evidence alone is difficult to deem that any one of the motor vehicles and the defendant motor vehicles clearly enters the intersection, and the width of the road is 6.22m higher than that of the road where the defendant motor vehicle is traveling, and the width of the road is 6.6m higher than that of the road.