beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.01 2019나61658

구상금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. At the time of the instant accident, on January 22, 2019 at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff, at the location of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and the Plaintiff’s accident contents near the IC in the vicinity of the Kopo-si, the vehicle stopped on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle by opening the rear door of the driver’s seat on the adjacent side while driving the said road on the road while driving the road on the road. The vehicle turned down on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle. The amount of the insurance money paid at KRW 5,605,00 (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle) 6,105,000 (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle) excluding the amount of KRW 500,000,000 for self-paid insurance money of the secured self-paid vehicle of the amount of KRW 500,000 on February 27, 2019

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, namely, (i) the Defendant’s vehicle stops on the “road” on which no parking or stopping is allowed, and traffic is prohibited; (ii) the Defendant’s vehicle has a duty of care to verify the safety of the vehicle, such as the existence of the vehicle behind the front door of the driver’s seat before opening, but the Defendant’s vehicle has a duty of care to check the safety of the vehicle, such as the existence of the vehicle behind the front door of the driver’s seat, but is still in conflict with the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle running on the rear side in the direction of the driving lane (the Defendant’s driver asserted that the vehicle was opening the rear door and the goods were found); (iii) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s driver was at the front side of the vehicle while driving on the front side of the road, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle without checking the safety of the vehicle.