Law Firm Cheong Branch, Attorneys Jeon Dong-jin, and Kim Jong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Vindication, Attorney Shin Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,776,50 won with 5% interest per annum from November 17, 2017 to January 16, 2020, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the insured as a door store C, with the insurance period from October 22, 2012 to October 22, 2017. Of the above insurance contracts, the term “liability for compensation for the manager of facilities” is subject to the guarantee of “actual damage caused by the burden of statutory liability for damage to another person’s body or property due to an unexpected accident arising from the performance of the business affairs in accordance with the use of the facilities owned, used, or managed by the insured, and the use of such facilities.”

B. The Defendant is an insurance company that concluded a contract for liability insurance for daily life with D as the insured.

C. Around 10:53 on April 4, 2017, E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) took part in the operation of the action that was carried out by the victim, she was faced with D and D, and she was able to take part in the instant action, such as the victim’s her he/she was able to take part in his/her arms, while he/she was taking part in the training course from her instructor G at the bar of the 3 and 4 floors of Songpa-gu Seoul F building, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and he/she was able to take part in the bridge, and then she was able to take part in the her arms. (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

D. By November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 29,255,000 for the damage inflicted on the victim due to the instant accident according to the insurance contract between the door store and the door store.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, D, who had been a victim and partner, had a duty of care to prevent the injury, had been committed in bad faith by taking the victim into her but but has not been placed at her m, but had been negligent in causing the instant accident. If so, D and C door stores or its employee caused damage to the victim due to joint tort by her instructor G, and it is reasonable to deem D and C door stores as joint tortfeasor 7:3. Accordingly, D are liable to compensate 70% out of the damages suffered by the victim for damages by tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and the Defendant is liable to pay the indemnity amount of KRW 20,478,50, which is 70% of the insurance amount paid by the Plaintiff as the insurer of daily life liability insurance with D as the insured.

B. Determination

1) The occurrence of claims for indemnity

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness G, D was unable to take more than the victim at the time of the instant accident. It can be acknowledged that the victim and D were taking action before the pilot instruction and action of G was completed, and that D was suspended from string due to the victim's own sound during the course of the instant accident. In other words, the victim suffered an additional injury, and that D was unable to take action at the time of the instant accident, except that it was difficult for the victim to take the action at the time of the instant accident, and that it was hard to see that D was out of the victim's external ability to take the action at the time of the instant accident, and that it was hard to say that D was out of the floor while taking the instant action, and that there was no choice but to take a certain degree of weight for the victim following the accident, and that the number of instructors at the time of the instant accident could not take action by taking full account of the following circumstances: (i) the instructor's how to take action in the instant case, 1).

Therefore, D also is liable for jointly compensating for the damage suffered by the victim due to the instant accident. Thus, the Plaintiff, the insurer of C literature store that fully compensateed the victim for the damage amount, can claim for reimbursement of the amount equivalent to D’s fault against the Defendant, who is the insurer of the daily life compensation liability insurance for the insured as the insured.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff had paid insurance money by calculating the amount of losses suffered by the victim caused by the instant accident in excess of 56 years of age, considering the fact that the victim had received several medical treatment since 2012, such as 'Madles and tensions', 'Madne', and 'Madne', the transfer of the instant accident, and the fact that the victim was female under 56 years of age, etc.

Furthermore, with respect to D’s rate of fault, the following circumstances, namely, that could be known by taking account of the health unit, the evidence of this case, and all other circumstances revealed in the records, where D and D acted even, it was made by the instruction of the instructor, and it was not clear whether D could have known that there was a serious difference between D and the victim at the time of the accident in this case, and the victim began to act without viewing the instructor’s demonstration until the end of the accident in this case, and did not conduct the action in an irregular manner. At the time of the accident in this case, D and the victim performed the action in an irregular manner, there is no circumstance that at the time of the accident in this case, the risk of action itself is recognized to a certain degree, and the negligence ratio of D and D’s negligence in relation to the accident in this case appears to be 30%.

(ii) the amount of indemnity;

Under the subrogation provision of the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,776,500 equivalent to 30% of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff to the victim, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 17, 2017, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and the scope of the defendant's obligation to pay the plaintiff's final insurance proceeds, from November 17, 2017, which is the date of the decision of this court, until January 16, 2020, and from the following day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by citing part of the plaintiff's appeal.

Judges Choi Han-han

Judges Lee Young-young