beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.09 2014나2876

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff shall set up an ordinary meeting in accordance with its articles of incorporation and conduct the business of compensating for losses to the plaintiff and his/her own, due to an accident that occurs while the member owns, uses, or manages the vehicle. The plaintiff's assistant is the plaintiff's member of the ordinary meeting.

The defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant with respect to B-si (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant's vehicle").

B. On January 9, 2013, at around 08:27, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven a Cchip taxi owned by it (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) and proceeded four-lanes of the four-lane road in front of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul into the room of the Olympic Park, with the room of the room in the Olympic Park. On the same day, the signal became straight immediately after the signal was changed to green, and the signal was straighted on the right side from the front left side to the yellow line, and the signal was obstructed by the Defendant’s vehicle at the right side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 886,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the mutual aid agreement with the Intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff's vehicle due to the accident of this case.

B. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against the Defendant by paying the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot acquire the right to indemnity, as the Plaintiff runs an insurance business without obtaining a license or authorization.

The plaintiff's damage compensation business is substantially an insurance business.

Even if the plaintiff and its members have not obtained permission or authorization under the administrative laws and regulations, the mutual aid contract is concluded between them.