beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.23 2015가단5179371

구상금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,246,717 as well as 5% per annum from May 23, 2015 to November 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a special corporation established by being entrusted with the industrial accident compensation insurance business by the Minister of Employment and Labor under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On October 9, 2012, around 13:35, 2012, B: (a) driven by the Defendant vehicle and entered the Defendant vehicle to the underground parking lot of the building in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu; (b) shocked D, a worker belonging to Absida Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Absida”) who was working for the replacement on the access road to the light of the sloped underground parking

(hereinafter “instant accident.” Due to the instant accident, D suffered bodily injury, i.e., chronological damage, brupt 1 pulverization (ad pressure), chronical 12 chronronical 1, 2, 3, 4 Crossing.

C. The Plaintiff, who entered into an industrial accident compensation insurance contract with Nonparty Company, recognized the instant accident as an occupational accident, and paid D medical care benefits of KRW 21,596,120,120,17,773,580, and disability benefits of KRW 39,38,372 until June 22, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 8, Eul's 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the occurrence of the liability for damages is recognized, the driver of the Defendant vehicle is negligent by neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident by driving the vehicle at a safe speed and method and neglecting the duty of care to prevent the accident, and thereby neglecting the duty of care to repair the floor in the front direction of the course.

The defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, bears the liability for damages caused by D's injury.

B. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, vehicles run as D even.