beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.06.04 2017가단104689

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,662,001 as well as 5% per annum from November 21, 2016 to June 4, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a victim of the following accidents, and the Defendant is a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance company that the Plaintiff, as the owner of C Les (hereinafter “instant Les”). D, as the registered insured.

B. On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a signboard business operator manufacturing and attaching a signboard, suffered injuries, such as the pressure cutting off of the second half-lanes, slurgized pule pule pule pule pule pule pule, 1, 2, 3, and water d, while putting up the three-story wall listed in the string strings of the instant string vehicles owned by D in order to attach the signboard to the third floor F of the string E in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case") / [the ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the accident of this case occurred by negligence of D, which is the owner and driver of the damage of this case. Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the damage of this case, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of exemption, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was liable for the instant accident while the Plaintiff leased the instant tea along with D, its owner and driver, and used it in the signboard installation work. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff constitutes the consenting insured with the consent to use the instant tea under the instant insurance contract and constitutes the consent insured with the consent to use it only within the limit of personal compensation I.

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff leased the instant straws together with D, an engineer, only on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 through 7.

As to the instant vehicle by controlling D’s operation or by controlling D’s operation, etc.