beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.26 2018나397

구상금

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 fact of recognition is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid contract which entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

Plaintiff

Around 15:50 on January 23, 2017, the vehicle used to turn to the left at the right from one lane among the two-lanes in the face of the human-military administration, from the front bank of the inner bank, the vehicle used to turn to the left at the right-hand turn at the one-lanes of the two-lanes in the front bank of the front bank of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was directly in the two-lanes from the front bank of the front bank of the front bank of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 67,224,550,00 as insurance money to the Dong passenger C of the Defendant vehicle for medical expenses, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5-6 video and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred concurrently with the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who violated the duty of care at the time of the left-hand turn, and the Defendant’s driver who violated the duty of care at the time of the left-hand turn.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 13,44,910 won (=67,224,550 won x 20%) equivalent to 20% of the defendant's negligence ratio among the insurance money paid by the plaintiff as compensation amount.

B. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s vehicle was driven normally according to the straight-on signal, but the Plaintiff’s driver did not temporarily stop but did not turn to the left. As such, the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked.

Therefore, the instant accident was wholly caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver.

(c) judgment;