beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 19, 201, at around 10:05, the Defendant driven a B Car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeded from the Hart-si 505-dong Hobro to a oriental medical hospital airball, the Defendant caused an accident of shocking the back part of the E-car driven by D, which is parked in the signal line (hereinafter “victim”) to the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
B. The Plaintiff is a legal entity entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with the authority to guarantee motor vehicle accident compensation, including the Government’s authority to compensate the victim’s damages within the scope of liability insurance, when a non-subscriber under Article 45 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Motor Vehicle Liability Act”) operated a motor vehicle and caused personal injury.
C. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant vehicle did not subscribe to liability insurance under Article 5 of the Automobile Loss Act, and the Plaintiff, as an insurer entrusted with the said security business, paid KRW 457,240 in total, including medical expenses incurred from the instant accident, to the driver D on July 20, 201.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence by the defendant's neglect of the duty to stop in the front line, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the damage 457,240 won to D caused by the accident in this case, and the plaintiff paid the above KRW 457,240 to D in accordance with the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business. As the defendant paid the above KRW 457,240 to D in accordance with the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business, the defendant, from July 21, 2011 to December 12, 2011, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's duty to stop in the front line.