Mo Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Uinsu, Attorneys Kim Jong-Un et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and 1 (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 2, 2009

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gadan462366 Decided October 9, 2008

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 312,277,795 won and 97,277,795 won among them, with 5% interest per annum from October 26, 2007 to the date on which the copy of each complaint of this case was served, and 215,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from April 2, 2008 to the date on which the copy of each complaint of this case was served, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 312,277,795 won and 97,277,795 won and 215,000 won from October 26, 2007; and 5% per annum from April 2, 2008 to the rendering date of each party judgment; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 3, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1 through 5, 13-1, 14-2, 1-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-1 through 5, 13-1, 14-1 through 3, 14-2, 5-2, and 2.

A. Status of the parties

With respect to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “one vehicle”), the Defendant Eastern Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “two vehicles”) and the Defendant Heungdong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is the insurer of the automobile insurance contract on behalf of Nonparty 1, a 2 vehicle representative driver, as the insured.

(b) Occurrence of a traffic accident;

(1) On August 16, 2005, the above non-party 1 driven the non-party 5 on the non-party 2's 04:20 and driven the non-party 5 on a two-lane road, and driven the two-lane road at a speed of about 110 km from the sloped side to the speed of about 380 km, the non-party 1 was driving the two-lane of the non-party 3's (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 3's vehicle") with an inner side of the front left side of the vehicle, caused the vehicle to be driven at the speed of about 110 km. The non-party 1 continued to drive the non-party 3's vehicle on the front side of the vehicle and caused the non-party 3's vehicle to drive the non-party 3's vehicle on the two-lane side (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 3's vehicle on the front side of the vehicle on which the accident occurred."

(2) Nonparty 7 driven a marina (hereinafter referred to as “three-vehicles”) and passed the accident site. Nonparty 7 stopped three vehicles on the right side of the front side after receiving a request for rescue from Nonparty 5, who went on the rear side of two vehicles, and tried to report an accident.

(3) Around 04:23 on August 16, 2005, Non-party 2 driven one vehicle and proceeded at a speed of about 100 km from the rear side of the two vehicles at the speed of two lanes, which is about a speed of about 100 km. In order to avoid the occurrence of the first accident, Non-party 2: (a) discovered the first accident-related vehicles that occupy the two lanes; (b) changed the course to the four lanes; and (c) proceeded with the four-lane loaded portion of the driver’s seat of Non-party 8 (hereinafter referred to as Non-party 8’s (hereinafter referred to as “non-party 7’s vehicle”) and proceeded with the front side of the vehicle; (d) continuously, the two-way side of the three-way vehicle stopped on the side right side of the expressway, shocking into the front side of the one vehicle, thereby causing an injury to Non-party 9 who was on the rear side of the three vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “motor vehicle”).

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the second accident is caused by the negligence of the above non-party 1 driver and the non-party 2 driver of the first vehicle who violated non-party 1's duty to take safety measures to prevent the second accident as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act and regulations. In light of the circumstances leading to the second accident, the above non-party 1's negligence at least 50%, and the plaintiff as the insurer of the second accident paid damages to the above non-party 9, the victim of the second accident, who is the victim of the second accident, as the insurer of the first vehicle, 624,55,590 won in total, and thus the defendants are liable to pay to each plaintiff the indemnity amount of 312,277,795 won (624,55,590 x 50%) and damages for delay.

The Defendants asserted that, first, the above non-party 2 suffered severe injury due to the first accident, and the second accident occurred in 30,000, and did not take safety measures for the prevention of the second accident. Second, even if the above non-party 2 violated the safety measures obligation, the second accident was merely caused by the violation of the duty to ensure safety distance, and there is no proximate causal relation with the non-party 1’s failure to take safety measures after the first accident.

3. Judgment by issue

A. Whether the safety measures obligation is violated

The fact that the above non-party 1 did not take measures, such as installing an emergency warning sign at the rear of the point of the accident after the first accident and providing guidance on passage to the vehicle following the reception, is not disputed between the parties, but the fact that the second accident occurred after the second accident occurred in the non-party 1. According to the statement of the evidence No. 5-4, the above non-party 1 suffered an injury to the extent that he was injured to the extent that he would be able to ask much of the clothes due to the first accident. In light of the above time interval and the situation of the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1 cannot request safety measures, such as setting up a triular light sign at the rear, or making the above non-party 1 wear a signal by means of posting a person.

B. Whether proximate causal relationship exists

(1) Even if a driver of a motor vehicle neglects his/her duty to install a traffic signal, etc. at the rear of the stopping point or at the vicinity of the stopping point, if the accident occurred regardless of the stopping of the motor vehicle or the traffic danger or obstacle caused thereby, it cannot be said that there is a causal link between the care for installation, such as the rectangular or flash signal, and the occurrence of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41412, Feb. 24, 2006).

(2) According to the purport of Nonparty 1’s partial entry and pleading, other than the above facts, as to the instant vehicle: (a) the place of the instant accident was four lanes at the speed of 100/h; and (b) there was no cause of road environmental accident, such as a sudden kib or a slope, in the right straight line immediately after the instant accident occurred; (c) the date of the accident was clear and the accident was about 04:23; and (d) there was no particular obstacle to the vehicle’s passage at the time of the accident; (b) there was no time to change the vehicle’s vehicle’s accident at the point of the instant accident to the point of the first accident; and (d) there was no other reason to recognize the fact that the vehicle’s accident occurred at the time of the instant accident, after the rapid change of the vehicle’s vehicle’s first accident to the point of the second accident to the point of the first accident; and (d) there was no other reason to recognize that the vehicle’s accident occurred at the latest after the accident occurred.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim under the premise that the second accident occurred due to the negligence of the above non-party 1 shall be dismissed without any further review, and it shall be dismissed without any justifiable reasons. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without any justifiable reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yan Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)