구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”).
B. Around 15:00 on July 17, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle written “Diveel E in Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu,” but this appears to be a clerical error in the “Diveel E in Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu.”
In the vicinity of the wall, there was an accident that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s collapse on the road, where the wall located adjacent to the said place and the Defendant’s wall pole installed on the wall (hereinafter “instant pole”).
C. The Defendant did not fix the instant columns on the ground, set a V and width at the middle part of the fenced of the wall, without fixing them on the ground, and installed two columns by having more than half of the height of the columns covered the wall, and put up a banner at the same place.
On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,912,940 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, images of Eul's evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the columns of this case installed by the defendant are acknowledged to have been in a state of failing to meet safety requirements ordinarily required for its use, and the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant is the possessor of the columns of this case, which are a structure, and unless there are special circumstances, he is liable to compensate for damages caused by the accident of this case.
In regard to this, the defendant is likely to cause the accident of this case by natural power or by the defect of fence, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is responsible for the negligence that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle parked on the sidewalk.