구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.
2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 2,698.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The relationship between the parties 1) The Plaintiff is the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”).
(1) The Ministry of Employment and Labor entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor, and the non-party two infrastructure Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party two infrastructure Co., Ltd.”)
A) is an industrial accident compensation insurance policyholder under the Industrial Accident Insurance Act, and the non-party A (hereinafter referred to as “victim”).
(2) Nonparty B is a driver who was employed by Nonparty Company and operated the instant vehicle for which Nonparty Company C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract against the instant vehicle for which the instant vehicle was located.
B. At around 08:20 on July 13, 2012, the accident occurred, B, while driving the instant car and driving it to enter into the assembly process unit, it was unreasonable for Nonparty Company B, which had been in the vicinity of the end of the instant Poilsck to go through the assembly process unit despite the lack of reflective radius. As a result, it was shocking the lusium and the lusium of the victim who was working in the said place (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the victim was hospitalized and treated for pain by suffering injuries, such as the closed frame of reproduction on the left side of the instant accident, etc.
C. Until December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid 35,921,840 won of temporary layoff benefits, 26,60,480 won of disability benefits, and 9,792,420 won of medical care benefits, 72,374,740 won.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The occurrence and scope of the defendant's liability
A. In full view of the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident was due to the negligence of violating the duty of safety caution by driving the instant vehicle.