손해배상(자)
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor was 47,504,834 won and this.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 03:55 on February 3, 2012, B, the vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle 1 of this case) is the vehicle of this case.
(ii)A D Driving E (hereinafter referred to as this case’s 2 vehicle) that was driven in the Mad Operation E (hereinafter referred to as this case’s 2 vehicle) that was driven in the Mad Operation, due to negligence of neglecting the duty of Mad Operation while driving along the two-lanes of the Modern Road, which is the exclusive exclusive exclusive road of the 350 Madambam-dong, in front of the Government in Seoul.
) The rear part of the first vehicle of this case was shocked in front of the first vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “first accident”).
(B) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the instant 1 vehicle.
GA while driving a vehicle, which was stopped due to the first accident, was immediately stopped in order to avoid the instant 1 vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was placed in a large line between the first lane and the second lane. At that time, the said road is the Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).
) The I, who had been driving, failed to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped prior to the negligence of neglecting the duty of ensuring the safety distance, and did not avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and shocked the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle back to the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”).
(i) the J-Motor vehicle is the third vehicle at the time of the foregoing road (hereinafter referred to as the “third vehicle of this case”).
2) On the other hand, K, who had been driving, failed to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped prior to the negligence of neglecting the duty to ensure the safety distance, and did not avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s third vehicle into the front part of the Plaintiff’s third vehicle (hereinafter “third accident”).
(2) At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was on the top of the Plaintiff’s class at the time of the accident, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
3. On May 27, 2015, the intervenor acquired the status and business of the defendant under all insurance contracts from the defendant, and entered the above fact of transfer.