구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to A chartered bus owned by Dongbae Tourist Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 11:50 on August 13, 2014, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the two-lane road of Pyeongtaek-si, Sejong-si, 11:50, and is proceeding on the two-lane road, and the part of the back end part of the Defendant’s vehicle stopped due to the static body of the vehicle, which led to the shock of the front end part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the vehicle on the two-lane road.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
From September 4, 2014 to January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff paid total of KRW 16,732,260 due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, video, purport of whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the bad maintenance of the Defendant’s vehicle, not on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle stops in a manner that does not operate the brake system, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was going behind the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked to the Defendant vehicle, and the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle is 50%.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 8,366,130 (=16,732,260 x 50%) and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant stopped the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle by stopping the vehicle due to the vehicle’s body and stopping at a reduced speed. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in performing the duty of front-time parking and was shocking the Defendant’s vehicle.
Therefore, since the instant accident occurred by the unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the indemnity to the Plaintiff.
3...