beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.09 2020나52001

구상금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On June 26, 2015, E, an employee of C, driven the Defendant’s vehicle on the road on June 26, 2015 pursuant to the agency driving contract, driving the vehicle on which F is aboard, while driving the 503-3 road in Asan-si (hereinafter “instant accident”). (C)

F was injured due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff was paid 457,690 won to F on July 10, 2015 as compensation for damages.

The injury suffered by F is the 12th degree of injury under the Automobile Compensation Guarantee Act, and the limit of liability insurance amount is 1,200,000 won.

(d)

The representative driver's comprehensive automobile insurance contract provides that the damages exceeding the liability amount corresponding to the liability insurance (I) shall be compensated.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the payment of compensation for damages not secured in the above agency driver's insurance contract constitutes management of the defendant's affairs, and thus, the expenses for office management should be returned.

In light of the fact that ① the instant accident is minor and thus the injury suffered by F is not in a causal relationship with the injury or is merely a king, ② the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle refuses to receive the personal accident, and the Plaintiff did not give any notice by the time four years and six months have passed since it was against the Defendant’s will, and thus, it does not constitute an administrative management.

The argument is asserted.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the instant accident and the injury were related to Gap, 4, 10, and 11, F can be recognized as having received medical treatment and prescription at G hospital after the instant accident, and thus, the causal relationship between the instant accident and the injury.