beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.24 2016나6529

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A malicious accident insurance company is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to vehicles C owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On April 14, 2015, around 00:30, on the two-lanes of the wedding hall located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, the front part of the G vehicle owned by the Plaintiff’s husband F (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was sent before the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was driving (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 626,426 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff's vehicle was stopped for the signal atmosphere, but the accident of this case occurred on the wind that the defendant's vehicle was suddenly backward, and therefore, the defendant asserts that there was a gross negligence on the part of the defendant, and that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant since the plaintiff's vehicle, which was stopped, received from the plaintiff's own aftermath and caused the accident

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, Gap evidence No. 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the accident of this case is caused by shocking and shocking the plaintiff vehicle, which was stopped for the signal atmosphere. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with the malicious damage insurance company for compensation for the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

1 The defendant, at the police investigation on April 23, 2015, could not know that his vehicle was isolated in the air and pushed ahead of it.