beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.25 2017나86387

부당이득금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

Basic Facts

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

On January 31, 2017, around 14:55, at the time of Jinju, the defendant's vehicle, which was driven mainly in excess of the speed limit from the first lane among the two lanes located in the half-lanes in the half-lanes of Jinju, did not avoid the plaintiff's vehicle that invaded the first lane and did not avoid the other plaintiff's vehicle, and the latter part of the plaintiff vehicle did not conflict (hereinafter "the accident of this case") with the front part of the defendant vehicle.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on May 22, 2017, pursuant to the “Mutual Agreement on the Deliberation of Motor Vehicle Insurance Claim Dispute,” which was held on May 22, 2017, determined that the percentage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault in the instant accident is 80%.

Accordingly, on June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in accordance with the terms of the above agreement that the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit with the court in case of objection to the decision of the committee for deliberation on disputes over indemnity payments after paying KRW 21,552,00,00, out of KRW 26,940,000 for the repair cost of Defendant vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] A. 3, 4, and 6 were written, Gap evidence Nos. 9’s video, and the purport of the entire pleading of the instant accident. The Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s vehicle to be responsible for the instant accident has no fault because it inevitably left part of the way of proceeding to avoid an obstacle in the front of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident. On the other hand, Defendant’s vehicle was driven at a speed equivalent to twice the speed limit, while Defendant’s vehicle was driven at a speed equivalent to two times the speed limit, and was negligent in failing to comply with the duty of the front-time watch, and thus, Plaintiff

Therefore, the instant accident is due to the total negligence of Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant is obligated to return the total amount of KRW 21,552,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle is the Defendant.