beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 13,723,362 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from August 19, 2014 to August 10, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The status of the party is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to Achip vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).
Defendant Samsung Trenk is the owner of B Costex vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) and Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.
B. On May 15, 2014, C, around 19:50 on the 19:50s, at the right side of the front of the Defendant vehicle, C stopped the Defendant vehicle on the three-lanes away from the boundary of the Dong-dong Office, and stopped on the front one another, and the vehicle stopped on the front one. At the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle running two-lanes from the opposite direction to the Defendant vehicle, C met the front side of the latter part of the vehicle, and the latter part of the vehicle shocked by the front one of the Defendant vehicle (attached Form).
See also about the accident site: hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”).
2) As a result of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff’s driver E suffered injury, such as f, G, H, I, and J, by causing the Plaintiff’s driver’s injury, such as the f, G, I, I, and tension of the passenger of the Defendant vehicle.
C. By August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 22,872,270 as insurance proceeds to E, the sum of KRW 1,50,00, KRW 4851,430 to F, KRW 5,056,00 to G, KRW 3,938,260 to H, KRW 4,378,610 to I, and KRW 3,147,960 to J.
[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 90% out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, asserting that the instant traffic accident was 90% due to the Plaintiff’s negligence, as the Defendant’s driver C depart from the three-lanes to the two-lanes, and neglected in the front and rear directions, and led to the Plaintiff’s negligence.