[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Lee Young-han

Law Firm Southern River, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jae-han

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

(a) Conclusion of insurance contracts;

The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract for the following 1,2 vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "1,2 vehicles"), and the defendant is a mutual aid contractor who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the following 4 vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "4 vehicles").

A person shall be appointed.

(b) The occurrence of a primary accident;

On December 16, 2017, at around 04:00, 4 vehicles run along the two-lanes of 299.1km in the Daejeon metropolitan Highway, Samsung-gun, Samsung-gun, Samsung-gun, the end of 04:0,00, and the end of 3 vehicles lose the center from the rear bank, change their course to the one-lane, and re-rout the center separation zone, re-rout the two-lane, re-rout the direction of the three-lane, re-rout into the two-lane, re-rout the two-lane of the three-lane, and re-rout the two-lane of the four-lane end end of the vehicle while avoiding the three-lane change. Accordingly, the three-lanes of the three-lane road and the four-lanes of the vehicle were stopped on the one-lane side.

(c) The occurrence of any secondary accident;

Around about 4 minutes, when a vehicle stops, it was found that 4 minutes of the vehicle stopped at a two-lane, and turned back to the right side of the two-lane left side of the vehicle, which was followed by the two-lane back from each other, and the two-vehicles moved back to the right side of the vehicle. As a result, the two-vehicles moved back to the right side of the three-dimensional vehicle. As a result, there was an accident that the three-lane vehicle driver H and I am on the road while the three-lane vehicle was pushed, and I died at around 05:50 on December 16, 2017, where treatment was being performed.

(d) Payment of insurance money;

The Plaintiff paid 307,303,300 won (I 270,960,860 won + 19,782,440 won for repair of one vehicle + 16,650,000 won for two vehicles) with insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

When a driver of a motor vehicle becomes unable to drive a motor vehicle on an expressway due to breakdown or any other cause, he/she shall additionally install a red light signal, electric control light, or flame signal which can be identified at a point of 500 meters in all directions on the night along with the sign of the motor vehicle. The sign of a broken motor vehicle shall be installed on the side of a road more than 100 meters behind the motor vehicle, the sign of the red light signal shall be installed on the road after not less than 200 meters from the motor vehicle, and necessary measures shall be taken such as moving the motor vehicle to another place than the road (see Articles 64 and 66 of the Road Traffic Act; Articles 40 and 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act; Articles 40 and 15 of the Road Traffic Act); and the driver of the fourth motor vehicle shall not take such measures as above; accordingly, the plaintiff, who is the insurer of the motor vehicle, shall be liable for damages for delay of the motor vehicle by paying 307,303,300 won to the driver of the motor vehicle (see 304).

B. Determination

In the event that a drilling accident occurs by a vehicle following the vehicle behind the vehicle that stops on the road without taking safety measures, such as moving the vehicle to a safe place even though it is impossible to drive the vehicle due to a preceding accident, or setting up a sign of a broken-down vehicle, etc. as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, there is no room for taking into account the fault of the preceding vehicle driver in calculating the amount of damages incurred by the future event when the preceding vehicle is placed in a situation where there is no negligence on the preceding vehicle operator and it is difficult to expect safety measures, etc. after the accident, or where the preceding vehicle is placed in a situation where it is difficult to expect such measures due to injury, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da215904, Mar. 27, 2014).

According to the aforementioned facts and evidence, ① the driver of a third vehicle driven along the second two-lanes of the middle-speed expressway, and caused the first accident to 4 vehicles due to negligence in driving, and ④ the driver of a fourth vehicle stops on the first-lane due to the shock of the accident, ② the driver of a fourth vehicle was unable to drive the fourth vehicle due to an emergency, etc., but the driver opened the front door and moved to the right side, and reported it to 119. ③ The driver discovered the fourth vehicle where the first vehicle was stopped and moved to the right side, ③ the two vehicles where the second vehicle was parked in the latter two-lanes of the last two-lanes, and the second vehicle was driven in the second two-lanes of the last two-lanes, and the third vehicle was pushed in the second two-lanes of the two-lanes. As a result, the accident caused the death of the second vehicle due to the accident caused the death of the first one.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the four vehicles stops at the point of the accident as being caused by the negligence of the three vehicle driver only, and that the vehicle was caused by the second accident with the fire 40,000 square meters and 1,200 square meters after the stop of the vehicle due to the first accident, and that the four vehicle driver was faced with the situation where it was difficult to expect the safety measures due to the vehicle garage, etc. caused by the first accident, or the first accident, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize any negligence on the fourth vehicle driver with respect to the second accident.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the driver was negligent in the second accident is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.