beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,916,80 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 28, 2017 to August 16, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim
A. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A (Treatment 25 tons car trucks, hereinafter the Plaintiff’s vehicle). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with B (Tank; hereinafter the Defendant’s vehicle).
(2) The occurrence of the instant accident (see attached Form No. 1) ① around 13:30 on July 4, 2017, 300, the 305.2km point near Daegu ICT along the west-gu along the border road. ② The Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000 for the instant accident to the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds, including the repair cost, up to September 27, 2017, by changing the three lanes from the point where the Defendant’s vehicle is narrow to the three lanes (hereinafter “the first accident”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 11, 13
B. (1) The main cause of the instant accident is the occurrence of the first accident caused by the negligence of the Defendant vehicle that violated the method of changing the lane, leading to the second accident. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant vehicle.
(2) However, the following circumstances that can be seen if the purport of the entire argument is added to the above evidence, the accident in this case was made at a lower time, and the situation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was secured at the time of the accident, and the cargo vehicle in the three-lanes was rapidly changed to two-lanes. However, considering that the distance between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the cargo vehicle was secured to a certain extent, as well as the situation at the time of the accident on the part of the collision between the second and the accident video, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s vehicle’s liability ratio to 80%.
(iii).