Attorney Jeong Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Shin, Attorney Shin Young-hoon

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Attorneys Kim Chang-soo, Gyeong-soo, Gyeong-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 2/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 5-1 through 26, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-1 through 31, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, Eul evidence 2-4, and Gap evidence 4's video, and there is no counter-proof.

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity for the taxi owned by the non-party Brightsi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer of the non-party D1 L1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”).

나. 소외 D2는 2008. 7. 22. 23:15경 원고 차량을 운전하여 부산 사하구 하단동 소재 4차로 중 1차로를 같은 동 소재 을숙도공원 방면에서 하단오거리 방향으로 진행함에 있어 전방 및 좌우를 잘 살피고 조향 및 제동장치를 정확하게 조작하여 안전하게 운전하여야 할 업무상의 주의의무가 있음에도 이를 게을리 한 채 운전한 과실로 원고 차량 진행방향 우측에서 좌측으로 무단 횡단하던 소외 망 D3(이하 '망인'이라고 한다)을 원고 차량 앞 부분으로 충격하여 망인을 맞은 편 도도로 튕기게 하였고(이하 '이 사건 1차 사고'라고 한다), 소외 D1은 피고 차량을 운전하고 같은 장소를 하단오거리 방면에서 을숙도공원 방향으로 1차로를 통하여 진행함에 있어 전방 및 좌우를 잘 살피고 조향 및 제동장치를 정확하게 조작하여 안전하게 운전하여야 할 업무상의 주의의무가 있음에도 이를 게을리 한 채 막연히 운전한 과실로 진행방향 1차로상에 이 사건 1차 사고로 인하여 튕겨져 넘어와 도로 바닥에 쓰러져 있던 망인을 피고 차량으로 역과하여 머리 및 흉복부 다발성 손상 등으로 현장에서 사망하게 하였다(이하 '이 사건 2차 사고'라고 한다).

C. On July 31, 2008, the Plaintiff paid a gold of KRW 62,788,000 to the deceased’s inheritors. Judgment 2.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, due to the first accident of this case, was used on the road adjacent to the deceased, but not on death. The death of the deceased was caused by the second accident of this case, and the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle died in combination with that of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle, and the fault ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle shall be 1:9. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 90% of the amount paid by the plaintiff and the delay damages.

(b) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 5-10, No. 14, 23, 25, and No. 1-18, 20, 21, 26, and 30 of the evidence No. 5-10, and No. 18, 20, 20, 21, 26, and 30 of the evidence No. 5-1, the following facts are revealed: (a) Nonparty D2, who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was lowered from the Plaintiff’s vehicle in order to give the Deceased who was used on the road adjacent to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, so as not to shock other vehicles; (b) Nonparty D2’s getting off the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (c) the instant second accident and the instant second accident were occurred at intervals of about 30 and 1-1, respectively; and (d) the Deceased cannot be determined otherwise, as contrary to the evidence No. 5-18, 9, 11-14, and 15-1.

As seen above, in full view of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the first accident in this case and the second accident in this case, the deceased died in combination with the second accident in this case. Thus, the non-party D2 and the non-party D1 shall be deemed the joint tortfeasor, and the non-party D1 shall be deemed the insurer of the non-party D2 as the mutual aid business operator in this case, and the insurer of the non-party D1 shall be liable to claim the amount paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff,

In light of the health stand, as seen above, the first accident of this case and the second accident of this case as recognized, the second accident of this case occurred within 30 seconds from the time of the occurrence of the second accident of this case. At the time of the occurrence of the second accident of this case, the time when Nonparty D2, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, started the number signal. At the time of the second accident of this case, the second accident of this case was occurred at night, and the second accident of this case occurred at the wind used on the part of the deceased due to the first accident of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view the fault ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle as 65:35.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 21,975,800 won (62,788,000 won X0.35) and damages for delay at each interest rate of 5% per annum from August 1, 2008 to July 1, 2009, which is the day following the date of the payment of the mutual aid money sought by the plaintiff, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.