구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendants are the defendants.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a liability insurance contract with Defendant A for Oral Ba (hereinafter “accidentd vehicle”) under Article 5-1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. The Defendant A is a person who drives an accident vehicle, Defendant B is the owner of the accident vehicle, and Defendant A’s spouse.
B. Defendant A, at around 14:30 on July 21, 2013, driving a vehicle involved in an accident without a driver’s license on a motor vehicle on or around 14:30 on July 21, 2013, suffered injury in need of approximately three weeks’ treatment, due to the shocking of the victim D who walked in the way of a pro-gresponding to the Jeonnam-gu, Yeongung-gu.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,988,820 as insurance proceeds, as follows.
D EF
D. The Plaintiff’s comprehensive automobile insurance clause provides that the insured shall pay without delay the amount of accident charges of KRW 2,00,000,000 in case where the Plaintiff becomes liable for payment of the insurance money due to an accident occurred when the insured was to drive without a license or when the driver of the insured was to drive without a license under the explicit or implied approval of the insured.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As above, the instant accident is an accident that occurred while Defendant A is driving without a license, and it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A impliedly approved Defendant A’s unlicensed driving in light of the fact that Defendant A entered into an automobile insurance contract, and that Defendant A appears to have driven the accident vehicle mainly, etc. Therefore, the Defendants jointly asserted in the appellate court that the dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendants’ duty of performance from January 14, 2014, which is the date following the date of the Plaintiff’s final payment of insurance proceeds, was accepted by the first instance court.