beta
서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.07 2018나32622

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A Bus (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B cab (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).

Plaintiff

On July 23, 2017, around 19:20 on July 23, 2017, vehicles used two lanes from the three-lane roads near D Hospital in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The Defendant’s vehicle running the same lane as above was passing along the intersection, and the vehicle was stopped over the two and three lanes along the course to the right lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the vehicle was in conflict with the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 294,300 for the medical expenses for the driver E of the Plaintiff vehicle, KRW 1,508,840 for the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by the passenger of the Defendant vehicle, and KRW 400,000 for the repair expenses of the Plaintiff vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that the parties concerned in the responsibility of the accident of this case as to the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including the paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings are liable for the damages of this case. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's vehicle operated the accident of this case by an abnormal method such as sudden stop, etc. at the time when the defendant's vehicle was straight along the two-lanes of the three-lanes and it was nearly passing through the intersection, and that the accident of this case led to 50% of the defendant's vehicle's negligence.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the failure of the plaintiff vehicle to maintain the safety distance and to perform its duty at the time of front-time, and that there is no causation between the negligence of the defendant attempted to make a right-hand at the second-lane and the accident

Judgment

According to Article 19 of the Road Traffic Act, when the driver of any motor vehicle follows the motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, the driver of any other motor vehicle shall conflict with the motor vehicle traveling ahead of it when the latter stops suddenly.