beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.04.04 2018나60548

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

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract (including a special agreement for family limited driving) with D with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with F with respect to the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant’s insured vehicle”).

B. At around 16:52 on June 12, 2017, D’s G driven the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle and driven along the two lanes from among the fourth line roads around H apartment in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the relevant section was a white solid line prohibited from changing the lanes. However, the Defendant’s insured vehicle entered the three lanes to the two lanes, and the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was shocked by the front line of the driver’s seat, following the front line of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle.

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

In the instant accident, Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was destroyed, and on July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,755,500 as insurance money equivalent to the repair cost of Plaintiff’s insured vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the occurrence of the instant accident, the first instance court appears to have cited the amount equivalent to 90% of the claimed amount (the total repair cost paid by the Plaintiff) on the premise that G, who is the driver of the insured vehicle, was negligent by 10%. The instant accident is an accident by force majeure due to which G was unable to avoid the duty of care in driving, and thus, the Plaintiff’s negligence should not be recognized, and the total claim amount should be accepted.

B. The instant accident is determined by the Defendant, in breach of its duty of care, who violated the direction and is likely to impede the normal passage of the vehicle running on the white solid line where the change of lane is prohibited, despite the fact that it is not likely to change the course.