beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the owner B of a vehicle with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and is a person who is engaged in taxi transport business using the said vehicle.
B. On June 21, 2016, at around 00:15, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding from the 4th line to the 4th line from among the 4th line roads of the 00th line of the 4nd line of the 00th line of the 00th line of the 201st line of the Seoul, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon. However, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the 3nd line of the said road at the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle changed the 4nd line to the 4nd line at the vicinity of the 00th line, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was unable to avoid this, and the front part of the
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff spent KRW 6,350,040 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as insurance proceeds.
The Defendant spent KRW 3,530,536,536 on July 14, 2016, including KRW 1,763,839, and KRW 1,766,697 on July 15, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the party's assertion 1) When the plaintiff's driver discovered that the plaintiff's vehicle was at the time of the accident in this case, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle neglected his duty of care to avoid the accident, such as warning or speeding the horn, even though he should have taken measures to avoid the accident, and the accident in this case occurred by continuously operating the vehicle without maintaining the safety distance with the plaintiff's vehicle. Thus, the accident in this case is entirely caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle. 2) The driver of the plaintiff's vehicle.