(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.18 2019나56496



1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal



1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C-Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is a person who driven D-Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 20, 2018, around 08:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding with a road near F in Ansan-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul. However, there was a traffic accident where the Defendant’s vehicle shocks the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

C. By November 26, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,348,810 in total at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, each entry and video of evidence Nos. 2 and 5, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the traffic accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the defendant's vehicle, which was conducted while neglecting the duty of ex officio. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 3,348,810 won of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) argues that since the defendant's vehicle is covered by the plaintiff's comprehensive insurance, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the defendant vehicle is recognized as having the registered insured as the defendant's wife G. However, in full view of the purport of the whole arguments in the statement No. 2 of the evidence No. 2, it can be acknowledged that the automobile comprehensive insurance, which G purchased, is agreed to be operated only by only one registered insured under a special contract with the driver's qualification. Accordingly, the automobile comprehensive insurance, which G joined, can be viewed as being able to benefit from the insurance, and thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

(2) In other words, the Defendant shall again enter into a non-life insurance contract for the said comprehensive automobile insurance.