beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가단5033083

구상금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,441,710 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 2, 2014 to March 29, 2016, and the following.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the parties (1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C with respect to D vehicles.

The security issues of the above insurance contract include a non-insurance accident security agreement per capita up to 200 million won (the insurance contract which provides compensation on behalf of the person liable for damage where the insured died or died of an accident caused by a motor vehicle not subscribed to the Ⅱ or the mutual aid contract).

② The Defendant is an operator of Oralba (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Oralba”) for convenience.

B. On June 4, 2013, around 20:10 on June 4, 2013, the Defendant driving the Defendant Orab, and driving the Defendant Orab on the side road without distinguishing the front of the F building in Ansan-si, from the front of the F building in Ansan-si, and the front line is not installed.

In order to overtake G transit buses prior to, the Defendant continued to follow the direction toward the left side of the above transit bus, and shocked C from the left side of the above side road to the front side of Defendant Obane.

As a result, C suffered injury, such as pressure drums No. 2.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Until September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds and returned KRW 7,741,710, and KRW 45,741,710,000, totaling KRW 52,71,710,000 for medical expenses and KRW 7,363,240 for medical expenses until September 10, 2013, and KRW 16,30,000 for insurance proceeds under the pretext of agreement were returned from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Liability for damages and occurrence and scope of the right of indemnity;

A. The accident of this case involving the Defendant’s liability for damages to C is one of the duty to maintain the safety distance prior to the front and the front and the safety distance in operating the otobs on the back of the side where the obs are not set up at night.