beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.14 2019나3126

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants, including the claims added by this court, is as follows.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract including a non-life insurance guarantee agreement with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant C, as the owner of the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant”) entered into a liability insurance contract with the Codefendant F Codefendant in the first instance trial on the Defendant vehicle.

B. At around 10:07 on December 6, 2017, Defendant B: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle and operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle near Gwangju Northern-gu G in a single lane; (b) caused an accident by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle operating the opposite lane (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 25, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,841,620 in total to H, a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, for medical expenses and agreed fees. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 in advance to Defendant B pursuant to Article 11 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident occurred by one’s negligence, which affected the center line. However, the Plaintiff paid the insurance money to H, who is the Plaintiff’s driver, in accordance with the non-injury Security Special Agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement from the Defendants in subrogation of H’s right to claim damages.

In addition, the Plaintiff paid 500,000 won advance payment to Defendant B in accordance with the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Since the instant accident occurred by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Plaintiff sought the return thereof from the Defendants.

B. The accident of this case involving the fault ratio of the plaintiff 1 and the driver of the defendant vehicle in the part of the claim for reimbursement is caused by the shock of the string part while the original defendant vehicle is running in the opposite direction, and the traffic accident of the Road Traffic Authority.