beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 27,803,79 and KRW 1,844,586 among them, from March 31, 2014, and KRW 12,146,550.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (low cover, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), and the Defendant is the owner of B vehicles (b).
C around 14:32 on October 26, 2013, while driving the Defendant vehicle and driving the intersection of the distance of D three-distance D in Incheon Bupyeong-gu from the side of the Bupyeong-gu Office, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, the traffic signal prior to the arrival of the said intersection was changed to yellow, but it is clear that E conflicts with the Plaintiff vehicle driven by E.
At the time, E entered the said intersection bypassing it from the edge of the steel industry to the edge of the parallel, and discovered the Defendant’s vehicle late later, followed the speed pedal by turning the hand in the right direction in order to avoid collision, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the front side of the pedestrian F’s bridge by going beyond the delivery, and continued to shock G and H in the oral room around India.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Plaintiff paid KRW 40,48,50 by December 26, 2013, as the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 6,148,620 by March 31, 2014, and KRW 40,48,500 by December 26, 2013, as the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 10,349,630 ( KRW 4,756,460, KRW 593,170) by December 31, 2012, and KRW 35,692,580 by June 10, 2014.
[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including numbers), and the fact that the judgment of the purport of the entire pleadings is established, the driver of the defendant vehicle, despite the duty of care to observe and operate the signal, caused a situation where the plaintiff vehicle entered the intersection after a yellow signal was turned on, causing a situation where it is obvious that the plaintiff vehicle would collide with the plaintiff vehicle, and thereby caused the accident of this case, the defendant is a joint tortfeasor with the plaintiff vehicle, and thus, the damage suffered by the victims due to the accident of this case.