beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.18 2013가단111345

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant Hyundai Sea is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with D with respect to the G vehicle (hereinafter “instant Defendant vehicle”) with B (i.e., children,F., 18 years old at the time of age, and (ii) with C’s agency with C’s delegation, and (iii) with the Plaintiff’s agent with respect to the G vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); the insurance period from October 17, 2011 to November 17, 2011 to the insurance period; and (iv) the Defendant is the father of B.

B. A around 20:15 on October 17, 201, while driving the instant Defendant vehicle and changing the lane from the two-lane to the one-lane road located in Ulsan-gu traffic 218-4 in Ulsan-gu, the vehicle of this case was shocked by the Plaintiff at the first-lane, and due to its shock, the Plaintiff’s vehicle of this case was parked across the median line and was parked outside the median line, resulting in an accident leading up to H, I, J, and K (hereinafter “victim”).

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 54,584,000 in total as the repair cost of the instant damaged vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. As to the claim against Defendant A, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant A was liable to pay 49,125,600 won and damages for delay at the rate of 90% of its negligence, since Defendant A failed to perform his/her duty to protect and supervise the instant traffic accident, and Defendant A neglected to cause the instant traffic accident.

In this case, it cannot be presumed that Defendant A failed to perform his duty to protect and supervise B solely on the ground that Defendant B, who had been a 18-year-old employee at the time of the instant traffic accident, caused a traffic accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.