[부당이득금반환청구사건][하집1987(2),298]
A. Whether the driver's negligence is viewed as the negligence of the victim in relation to the automobile insurance company in a case where the victim jointly operated with the driver;
B. Whether the fact that the victim jointly operated a passenger car operated by himself/herself on the part of the Nonparty, the Nonparty, who was the Nonparty, constitutes negligence of the victim
A. In a case where the victim was on board and jointly operated with the bus of the bus company for the same purpose as that of the non-party, the non-party's negligence should be viewed as the negligence of the victim even though there was no victim's negligence in relation to the bus company. However, with respect to the relationship between the company holding the above car and the insurance company to which the said car was a party, the non-party's negligence should not be viewed as the negligence of the victim as a matter of course, and only the victim
B. Even if the victim got the status of allowing the victim to win a passenger car operated by the said non-party for tourism purposes along with the non-party, he/she could not be deemed to have any negligence on the part of the victim, barring special circumstances attributable to the victim's negligence in light of justice, such as that the victim's above winning a passenger car for tourism purposes is solely for the benefit of the victim, and the principle of fairness.
Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act
2. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu251 Decided January 20, 1987 (Gong796No 361)
Korea Automobile Insurance Corporation
Defendant
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,834,200 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
In full view of the fact that the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who purchased the above 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 4, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 5, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 9, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 2, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 8, the plaintiff 9, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 2, the plaintiff 9, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 9, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 2, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 9, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the non-party 4, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 9.
The plaintiff was not liable for damages due to the plaintiff 1's non-party 1's accident or the non-party 1's accident that occurred to the non-party 2's non-party 1's accident, and the defendant was not liable for damages due to the non-party 1's non-party 1's accident accident or the non-party 2's accident accident accident's accident insurance contract's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1'
Then, the plaintiff was not liable for damages against the non-party 1 corporation as Daegu District Court No. 8 (Case No. 1 omitted) and again filed an appeal with the Daegu High Court No. 1 as to the non-party 1's negligence, and the non-party 1's judgment was rendered at the 30/100, and the above judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant's non-party 1 as to the non-party 1's negligence as to the non-party 6's damages to the non-party 1's damages to the non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's damages.
In addition, the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the above insurance benefits paid by the company for the defendant were paid without legal responsibility or without considering the defendant's negligence, is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.
Judges Jeong-young (Presiding Judge)