logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.28 2016나73160 (1)
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants amounting to KRW 5,422,400 and the Plaintiff’s joint and several costs therefrom from December 31, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles owned by B, and the Defendant A is the driver of D vehicles, the owner of the said vehicle, the Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the said vehicle.

B. On November 20, 2015, around 21:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle damaged the vehicle due to shocking the front part of the vehicle due to the Defendant’s vehicle that was followed while proceeding to the Seoul direction at the Seoul direction and the access road coming to the Chuncheon direction of the Seoul Chuncheon-si Seoul Metropolitan City (Seoul Metropolitan City).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance money of KRW 6,778,000 to the insured B as the automobile repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred due to Defendant A’s violation of the duty to ensure a safe distance and the duty to provide a prior watch. Since the Plaintiff paid the insurance money of KRW 6,778,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff, the Defendant A, as the driver of the Defendant vehicle, is liable to pay KRW 6,778,00 for the above vehicle jointly and severally to the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the above vehicle, barring any special circumstance, in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the plaintiff's vehicle at the time of the accident in this case was operated as the lane in the Chuncheon direction, and it was somewhat impossible to enter the lane in the Seoul direction, even if it was done immediately before the winter path.

arrow