beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Nonparty A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the Defendant Otoba (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. At around 16:50 on September 13, 2014, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the two lanes between the three-lanes at “N-type Intersection” D, etc., and changed rapidly from the first lane to the bus in front of the signal, and made a left-hand turn in violation of the signal, and caused an accident where the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the part on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located in the opposite direction, conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. The Plaintiff asserted the Plaintiff’s negligence without fault and filed a request for deliberation with the Motor Vehicle Indemnity Policy Council, but the said Council decided on July 27, 2015 at the rate of 10:90 for the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle to pay KRW 1,546,000 in total for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle until August 19, 2015. The latter decision was made on September 14, 2015 at the Re-deliberation of the Motor Vehicle Indemnity Policy Council on the Compensation of Automobile, and the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle was 10:90 for the Plaintiff to file the instant lawsuit against this objection.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by a traffic signal, etc., shall, except in extenuating circumstances, be obliged to observe traffic regulations and to take appropriate measures to avoid any collision, and shall not be obliged to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance, as expected by another vehicle to violate the signal, to stop driving along one’s course, and to predict the occurrence of the accident to the extent that the other vehicle runs along one’s course while driving along one’s course;
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da30428 delivered on August 24, 1999, etc.).