beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.28 2014나303141

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 26, 2013, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on July 26, 2013 and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on a two-lane road in the front of the D Pharmacy in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and using one-lane road in the Korean Won-do, the end portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving in the direction of a sexual watch distance from the direction of Korean Won-do.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

As an insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,003,000 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle was rapidly changed from the two-lane to the one-lane, and the fault of the Defendant’s vehicle in the instant accident is 70%.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 702,100, the amount equivalent to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle for the instant accident out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay.

B. In light of the judgment, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent in changing the vehicle from the two lanes to the first lane with respect to the occurrence of the instant accident, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise is without merit without need to further examine.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.