beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나24869

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount among the part against Defendant A is equivalent to the amount ordered to be paid.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 01:30 on August 18, 2008, Defendant A (LL) stolen a city T 100 Oral Ba (hereinafter “the instant Oral Ba”) owned by E from the alley C in front of the Panju City on the alley-si (hereinafter “the instant Oral Ba”), and took place on August 18, 2008, around 02:00, 5 people, including F and M, from the street in front of the Kmaart located at theJ of the Panju-si (J).

B. On August 18, 2008, Defendant A’s friendly job offering F, without a driver’s license, caused a traffic accident involving G crossinging the crosswalk on the road in front of the Seocheon-ri, Seocheon-ri, Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul, to inflict an injury on G, such as the frame of the right-side executive opening, the right-hand extension, etc.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract including each non-insurance coverage agreement that compensates for the injury caused by non-insurance without any license between H and I, and paid KRW 59,250,70,000 in total to H’s father and I, who is his/her city-based father and I, and KRW 59,250,70 in the amount of compensation for the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act’s business until March 19, 2009 as well as the insurance money for the injury caused by non-licensed cars of each of the above comprehensive insurance contracts.

Defendant B and C are the parents of Defendant A.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 to 28 evidence (including each number), or the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion (i) Defendant A’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was stolen and stolen from the instant OE and caused F to temporarily drive the instant OE, and thus, the status of the operator of the instant OE as at the time of the instant accident shall be deemed to continue to exist.

Therefore, Defendant A is liable to compensate for the instant accident caused by the operation of the Orala, as the operator of the instant Orala, and Defendant B and C are the duty to protect and supervise Defendant A.