beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2013.12.10 2013나765

손해배상(자)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be found with Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8-1, 2, 3, and 9-1, 2-2, and 2-1, 2-2, and 9-1, 2-3, and 9-1, 16, and 2-1, 2 of the evidence 1-2, and witness B, and H's testimony.

B driven a dump truck (hereinafter “dump truck”) owned by C on February 20, 2012, while driving a d 25.5 tons dump truck (hereinafter “dump truck”) and driving in the vicinity of the dump dump dump dump, which was located at the lower end of the dump, and dump truck (hereinafter “dump truck”) was shocked by the Plaintiff’s e25.5 tons, which was operated by H, with the central line dumped.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

The Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant by stipulating that the insured is C, the period of insurance is from July 7, 201 to July 7, 2012, and the driver is no less than 26 years of age.”

(hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). C.

The plaintiff is the father of C, and is the representative director of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "small and medium company").

From September 23, 1993, C used the name "F" as of June 30, 2010: The location of each "F": I in the East Sea, the type of business: A separate business registration concerning construction machinery contract and the rental business; and entered into a contract between the non-party company and the non-party company on January 1, 2012 to place a piracy and a damaged vehicle; and the non-party company arranged to transport tin, etc. collected from the mining station located in the JJ when the non-party company arranged.

Around March 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for insurance money by asserting that the damage, such as the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle, was incurred due to the instant accident, but the Defendant paid the insurance money on the ground that it constitutes an exemption from liability under the ordinary terms and conditions of the Defendant’s Business Automobile Insurance that applies to the damaged vehicle.