beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.14 2018나7916

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. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 2, 2017, around 16:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped along a four-lane near the bus stop in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seog-si, along the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) immediately after changing the two-lane to the two-lane. The instant accident occurred.

C. On May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,754,590 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

After paying the insurance money of KRW 2,056,00 on the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, the Defendant filed a claim with the Defendant for deliberation of the committee for deliberation on the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance with the Defendant. On August 7, 2017, the said deliberation committee decided to adjust the Plaintiff’s negligence of 40% and the Defendant’s negligence of 60%, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 31, 2017, which is the closing date for filing an objection against the said decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s principal safety defense lawsuit was filed in violation of the duty to transfer the deliberation claim under the mutual agreement on the deliberation of a dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “instant agreement”) which is a party to the instant agreement by a domestic insurance company and a mutual aid business entity, etc., and thus, is unlawful. B. 1) In fact, the Plaintiff and the Defendant joined the instant agreement and the insurance company, etc. subscribed to the instant agreement (hereinafter “contributing company”).

The part relating to this case in the present agreement is as follows.