beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나38787

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C as to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant A is a driver at the time of the accident following the E vehicle covered only by liability insurance (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Defendant B was the owner of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the accident.

B. On September 9, 2014, around 16:12, 2014, C conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the three-lanes of the three-lanes as Seoul Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Sicis.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, C, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered bodily injury, such as light fluoral salt, and F, the passenger of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered bodily injury, such as light fluoral salt, tension, etc.

By October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,310,370 insurance money to C with personal injury in accordance with the standard set forth in the ordinary terms and conditions (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 1,230,370 for solatium of KRW 150,00 for future medical expenses of KRW 150,00 for future medical expenses of KRW 930,000 for future medical expenses), and KRW 1,753,730 for personal injury (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 703,730 for non-life compensation of KRW 150,730 for future medical expenses of KRW 300,00 for future medical expenses of KRW 300,000 for non-life compensation of KRW 300,00 for future medical expenses of KRW 600,00 for future medical expenses of KRW 150,00 for Defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for indemnity; and

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence committed by Defendant A, who is the driver of the vehicle in this case, due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of care in front of the vehicle. Thus, Defendant A is a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and Defendant B, the owner of the vehicle in this case, is jointly liable for damages caused by the accident in this case as the operator of the vehicle in this case as prescribed in Article 3

(b) indemnity liability;