구상금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant C and D are the owners of E Carren vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicles”).
On July 2013, Defendant C entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff, the insured C, the insured vehicle of this case, the insurance period from July 8, 2013 to July 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant automobile insurance contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would compensate for personal injury I, personal injury II, personal injury, personal injury, personal injury, and non-life insurance (hereinafter “instant automobile insurance contract”).
Article 8(1)6 of the Terms and Conditions of the said Automobile Insurance Contract provides that “The damages incurred when an insured automobile is used or lent repeatedly in return for the profit-making purpose in return for the fee or consideration shall not be compensated from the personal injury II and the personal injury.”
B. Around January 2014, F entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff and the insured F, insured F, insured vehicle G carren vehicles, the insurance period from January 13, 2014 to January 13, 2015, with the purport of compensating for personal injury I, personal injury II, personal injury, personal bodily injury, and non-insurance injury, etc.
(F) According to the foregoing contract, the term “automobile insurance contract” refers to an automobile, other than an insured automobile, which falls under the case where the insured is dead or injured, and falls under the case where the automobile is not compensated in the automobile insurance class II or the mutual aid contract.
C. On July 1, 2014, Defendant B driven the instant vehicle on the 23:55, and proceeded at the 4th page of the Southern District Office of Education to the 4th page, and Defendant B tried to turn to the left at the H level at the 4th intersection.
Since the above intersection is operated due to yellow domination, Defendant B had the duty of care to safely enter the intersection before entering the intersection.
However, Defendant B neglected this and continued to turn to the left at the above intersection.