beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.05.09 2017나52174

구상금

Text

1. Defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, who falls under the following order to pay.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Under the National Health Insurance Act, the Plaintiff is an insurer of the National Health Insurance that provides citizens with insurance benefits for the prevention, diagnosis, and medical treatment of and rehabilitation from diseases and injury, for childbirth death, and for improvement of health. B is a policyholder of the National Health Insurance, and the Korean Federation of Passenger Passenger Taxi Transport Business Act (hereinafter “Defendant Federation”) is a mutual aid insurer who is liable for damages to be borne by Defendant A against a third party due to an accident that occurred while operating C cab (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 11, 2013, around 23:15, the Defendant A driven the Defendant’s vehicle on the front of the Sho-dong Sho-dong Shodong Arts Center, and shocked B, who was getting on a bicycle and passed the bicycle without permission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Due to the instant accident, B’s total medical expenses paid to a medical care institution from September 30, 2013 to November 18, 2013: KRW 6,165,750 [The insurance benefits expenses = KRW 4,409,110 (the Plaintiff’s charges of KRW 3,183,560) (the Plaintiff’s charges of KRW 1,225,550) for non-benefit treatment expenses of KRW 1,756,640].

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3, 6, 10 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant A is the party who caused the instant accident, and the defendant federation is the insurer of the defendant A, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damages incurred by B due to the instant accident.

Since the accident of this case, along with the negligence of Defendant A, concurrently occurred by the negligence of Defendant A, crossing the road without permission, it is reasonable to see that the negligence ratio of Defendant A is 10%.

Meanwhile, as the Plaintiff provided insurance benefits to B, it subrogatedly acquired the Defendants’ right to claim damages within the limit of the expenses incurred in paying the benefits pursuant to Article 58(1) of the National Health Insurance Act.

B. The scope of indemnity against the Defendant Federation (1) non-benefit treatment costs.