구상금
The defendant's KRW 64,936,060 for the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from October 5, 2015 to September 8, 2017, and the following.
At around 22:50 on April 7, 201, the fact that the joint tort liability was constituted, conflicts with the taxi of B(hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle") that had been driven by the driver while the driver was driving the vehicle of C(hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle") while driving the vehicle of C(hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle") being driven by the driver while driving the vehicle on the vehicle of C(hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle") in the first way while the driver changed the course to a first way on the road of the Don-dong Election Commission in the Donsan-dong Election Commission.
(A) No. 1 and the above accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
The Plaintiff asserts that there was no negligence on the Plaintiff’s driver in light of the weather and time at the time of the instant accident. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver recognized his negligence at the investigative agency (Evidence No. 1-7) and the fact that the second accident appears to have occurred after a certain extent of time after the occurrence of the first accident (Evidence No. 1-9), it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s negligence was committed on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, and therefore, the Plaintiff is liable for damages to the victim pursuant to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Automobile Compensation Act”), as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
The defendant asserts that there is no negligence on the driver of the defendant vehicle on the part of the victim, who caused the accident due to the change of the course of the victim.
However, the driver of the defendant vehicle also recognized his own negligence at the investigative agency, and in light of the fact that the shock side of the defendant vehicle faces head on the front side of the defendant vehicle as the front part of the right part and the fences, the victim faces head on the front side of the vehicle (this evidence No. 1, No. 9).