beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. In fact, the Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).
On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,274,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Class A Nos. 1 and 3
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of the evidence set forth in the evidence set forth in the evidence set forth in the evidence set forth in the evidence set forth in subparagraph 4, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle was changed to the one lane (exclusive lane on the front line) from the front line to the second line (on September 24, 2016, in which the left-hand turn signal came into the front line of the hospital located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on September 12:13, 2016; ② the Plaintiff’s insurance money was changed to the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was going into the first lane, and ② the Defendant’s vehicle was changed to the front line of the front line of the vehicle set forth in the video set forth in the evidence set forth in subparagraph 4 (Evidence No. 4), and the Defendant’s vehicle’s driver was found to have been in contact with the Plaintiff on September 24, 2016, with the Plaintiff’s vehicle damaged by the front line.
B In view of the fact that damage caused by flag, which is in the same color as that of the Defendant’s vehicle, can be found at the right top and right top of the Defendant’s vehicle, in full view of the fact that the Defendant vehicle flags in the future of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and that the part of the Defendant vehicle flabs the right top part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as well as the subsequent part of the Defendant vehicle, is sufficient, and the description of No. 1 is alone.