beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A-cruise Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B-cracked Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On September 24, 2016, around 14:05, in the vicinity of the Kansi-si Lando-dong 1, Dongwon Highway, the Plaintiff’s vehicle used the direction direction, etc. after the completion of the tunnel while driving on the two-lanes in the middle of the four-lanes of the tunnel, and the vehicle changed from the first to the second two-lanes, and there was an accident that conflict between the right side of the Defendant vehicle and the front side of the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On November 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 11,239,000, after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle 11,739,000 due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle driver who immediately changed the vehicle line to the end while changing the course at sufficient intervals from the vehicle driving along the changed lane. Therefore, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who violated the instant accident, even though the Defendant’s vehicle ends the tunnel and completed the change of course lawfully at a place where the change of course was permitted, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.
B. (1) Determination is made on Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act that causes damages.