구상금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the record as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on November 6, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and proceeding the pleading. The original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered only on February 3, 2015, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on February 9, 2015. Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the appeal for subsequent completion of appeal of this case is lawful.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B dump trucks (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”), and the Defendant is the driver of C si (hereinafter “Defendant-motor vehicle”).
B. On December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff Company changed the lane from the two lanes to the three lanes while the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sinsan-dong 3 was driving a four-lane road near the Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, to the three-lane, and suffered injury by D and E, which was driven by the Defendant Company due to shocking the Defendant Company.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
By January 22, 2009, the Plaintiff paid D medical expenses and agreed amount of KRW 904,170, and KRW 956,050 to E as insurance money.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
3. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was negligent in changing the lane from the fourth to the third lane without regarding the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and sought a reimbursement of the amount equivalent to 40% of the amount of reimbursement.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred entirely by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle and continued the three-lanes, the defendant himself did not bear any negligence.
4. The statement and pleading of the evidence set forth in subparagraph 1.