Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner and the driver of the Category C Automobile (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is the insurer who concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Category D Automobile (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”) including when the Plaintiff refers to the driver.
B. On September 16, 2018, around 22:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs along the two-lanes of approximately 2km in the direction of Incheon from the 1st, Seocheon-si New Road in the direction of Incheon, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped the front vehicle stopped after the Defendant’s vehicle, which driven along the first lane in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, opened a direction direction, etc., and rapidly changed the two-lane, and then stopped the vehicle (hereinafter “ongoing vehicle”). However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along as it is and the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Defendant vehicle conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. The Plaintiff spent KRW 4,477,700 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and KRW 391,600 for the Plaintiff’s medical expenses due to the instant accident.
【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition】 【A', Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred because the defendant vehicle, which was driven along the first lane, was rapidly stopped immediately after the rapid change of the lane to the second lane without keeping a safety distance, and the plaintiff vehicle was unable to report it. Thus, the accident in this case is due to the total negligence of the defendant vehicle.
In regard to this, although the defendant reported that the previous vehicle stopped while the accident of this case had already been completed the change of the lane, it was caused by the plaintiff vehicle's fault in violation of the duty to stop on the front and the duty to observe the safety distance, etc.