구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The facts following the facts are either not disputed between the parties, or found in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1-5, 7, 8, and 9-5, 7-8, and 9, as a whole in consideration of the overall purport of the pleadings, and evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1-11, and Eul evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 1-2 of the first instance trial witness E are insufficient to reverse the recognition.
The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the B Trucks owned by the Daesung Logistics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer of C Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
B. A, around April 24, 2012, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on April 24, 2012, along the two-lanes between the two-lanes of the flow line at the New Daegu Busan Busan Busan Busan Expressway.
At a point of 53.1km in Busan, there was a mistake that found a cell phone charging device in the vehicle due to negligence in front of the front-down, and thus, the left side of the Defendant vehicle parked on the side of the side, and the death was caused by shocking D that was left front of the Defendant vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”). C.
The driver E of the Defendant vehicle stopped on the side of the vehicle at the time and stopped, without installing a sign of the broken-down vehicle or an flash signal, etc., and opened the Defendant vehicle and inspected the engine string. The driver of the Defendant vehicle was in front of the Defendant vehicle after getting off the vehicle. D, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, was in front of the Defendant vehicle.
Until November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 81,477,950 in total to D’s inheritors as damages incurred from the instant traffic accident.
2. According to the above recognition of the liability for reimbursement, the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the mistake that the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not properly take the front door at the location of the traffic accident in this case, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the location of the traffic accident in this case.