beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the C bargaining Vehicle owned by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
B. On June 7, 2016, at around 19:20, the Defendant: (a) neglected the duty to stop and stop the previous vehicle while driving a D car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) in the vicinity of the 5 literature, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (b) caused an accident of shocking the back part of the previous vehicle while neglecting the duty to stop and shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (c) there was an accident of shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by E, the spouse of B, while the vehicle was pushed up in the future (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,191,850 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On the other hand, E paid KRW 1,00,000 to the automobile repair business entity as self-charges. On July 18, 2016, the Plaintiff was returned KRW 70,000 among them.
On June 24, 2016, the Defendant made an agreement with E to the effect that “The Defendant would not want to punish the perpetrator because it would have been mutually agreed upon as to the instant accident (the injury or physical damage).” (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”).
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 1-1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 5, Testimony No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the accident of this case occurred by negligence of one of the parties who neglected the duty of an ex officio, the defendant is obligated to compensate the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle for damages caused by the accident of this case. The plaintiff who paid the insurance money to the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle can exercise the damage claim against the defendant in subrogation of E under Article 682 of the Commercial Act. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle of this case = KRW 4,191,850 (= KRW 3,191,850 (= KRW 3,191,850) = KRW 300,000 (= KRW 3,191,850) E self-payment) among them.