beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 255,318 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from April 28, 2017 to October 19, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On April 24, 2017, the Defendant vehicle enters the front intersection of the Telecommunications (hereinafter “instant revolving intersection”) located in the Young-gu Godong-dong, Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si (hereinafter “instant revolving intersection”) around 08:45
First of all, there was an accident where the fronter part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat are faced (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 364,740 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for deliberation on the ratio of responsibility of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to the committee for deliberation on the disputes over indemnity (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) and determined the ratio of liability of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to 30% in consideration of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have driven on August 7, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case first enters the intersection and runs slowly, and the defendant vehicle was published in the future of the plaintiff vehicle that had been under normal conditions, and thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle was grossly negligent.
The defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle at the time of the accident in this case could have sufficiently predicted the entry into the intersection of the defendant vehicle, so the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle should be viewed as 30%.
B. The above findings of the judgment and the evidence revealed earlier.