National Freight Trucking Federation (Law Firm Southern River, Attorneys Kim Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

K non-life insurance Co., Ltd. and two others (Law Firm Sejongyang et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 18, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff shall pay 48,071,497 won to Defendant K non-life insurance Co., Ltd., the amount of 28,842,898 won each, and the amount of 5% per annum from January 23, 2009 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the amount of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) On April 17, 2006, the Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with Jinyang Business Co., Ltd. with respect to the motor vehicle (motor vehicle No. 4 omitted) owned by Jinyang Business Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) by setting the period of mutual aid as one year from the date of the contract.

2) Defendant C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C&C”) is the insurer of 25 tons of truck (vehicle No. 1 omitted). Defendant C&C Federation (hereinafter “Defendant C&C”) is the insurer of (vehicle No. 2 omitted) EF sita taxi (hereinafter “Defendant C&C”) and Defendant C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C&C”) is the insurer of (vehicle No. 3 omitted) E&C., and Defendant C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C&C”) is the insurer of the vehicle No. 3.

(b) Occurrence of an accident;

1) Around 07:40 on October 3, 2006, Nonparty 1, as indicated on the map at the scene of the accident, driven a 25 ton truck (vehicle number 1 omitted) and stopped the three-lane of the three-lanes of the west Sea Road (limited speed 110km/h straight line) near the 279.8km at the west-ri west-ri, the west-do 3rd Road (limited speed 110km/h straight line) around the west-do 3rd Road at the west-si. Nonparty 1 stopped the two-lanes of the above 25 ton truck on the ground that Nonparty 6's (vehicle number 5 omitted) which was driven ahead of the said 61 to 69m m. at the time of the stop.

2) At around 07:43 on the same day, Nonparty 2 (vehicle No. 2 omitted) opened a front line of the EFsia taxi and stopped on the two-lanes, Nonparty 2 concealed the rear part of the vehicle (vehicle No. 6 omitted) of Nonparty 7 driver’s (vehicle No. 6 omitted) Nana III vehicle.

3) At around 07:44 on the same day, Nonparty 3 stopped the back portion of Nonparty 2’s (vehicle number 2 omitted) EFasita Tax, which was stopped due to the accident described in the above paragraph 2, with Nonparty 3’s vehicle (vehicle number 3 omitted) and stopped Nonparty 7’s (vehicle number 6 omitted) small vehicles (vehicle number 6 omitted).

4) Meanwhile, Nonparty 5 stopped with the rear wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (vehicle No. 3 omitted) on the part of Nonparty 3’s (vehicle No. 3 omitted), which was parked on the part of Nonparty 3’s (vehicle No. 3 omitted), and parked on the side of the three-lanes due to a sudden collision between the vehicle and the fire that occurred on the other side of the three-lanes, and stopped on the one-lane (hereinafter “instant accident”). Nonparty 4 suffered injury, such as a pelke, cutting on the right side, etc., due to the instant accident.

(c) Payment of damages;

1) In relation to the accident of this case, Nonparty 4 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for damages claim against the Seoul Central District Court 2007Da36765, the above court decided on December 26, 2008 that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was unable to boom the Plaintiff at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the time of the accident, and the point was first 2 and 3 lanes from the Dong Fee, and the driver was at the time of the accident, and the driver was at the time of the accident. Thus, the driver was at the time of the accident, and the driver was at the time of the accident with the duty to reduce the speed and safely drive the vehicle, and the driver was at the time of his duty to safely evacuate the vehicle’s progress, and the vehicle’s fault was 80%, 200%, 20%, and the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff and Nonparty 4 208, 1086, 2709, 297, 307, and 309.7.

2) The Plaintiff paid the sum of KRW 192,285,990 to Nonparty 4 by January 22, 2009 according to the above judgment.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Defendant KF insured vehicle caused a primary accident that meets the needs of the vehicle in the front line because it was unable to perform the duty of the front line watch and the duty of the safety distance, and caused the instant accident by negligence, such as the front line watch, etc., and Defendant MV insured vehicle also caused an accident that re-injects the front line of the vehicle in the front line. Each insured vehicle in the Republic of Korea caused an accident that directly causes an accident that re-injects the front line of the vehicle in the front line, each of the Defendants insured vehicle was guilty of gross negligence that failed to perform the follow-up safety measures as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act even though the occurrence of the subsequent accident, and caused an accident that led to the occurrence of the instant accident by allowing Nonparty 4 to out of the expressway.

2) In addition, the Defendants committed an illegal stop, such as failing to perform their duty to take safety measures, such as moving the vehicle involved in the accident to a safe place or installing a sign in the event of a breakdown, in the event that the vehicle stops on the vehicle in the driving lane due to the preceding accident.

3) Such unlawful acts of the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s unlawful acts are competing with each other, and it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor, and the Plaintiff may hold and exercise the claim for reimbursement according to the internal ratio of liability of each joint tortfeasor against the Defendants. Therefore, when calculating that amount according to the internal ratio of liability, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of reimbursement of KRW 1) 48,071,497, Defendant 28,842,898, and delay damages therefor.

B. Determination

In light of the aforementioned facts and evidence, even if the Defendants were negligent in moving prior accidents caused by the Defendants’ violation of the duty of front-time watch and the duty of safety distance to a safe place, or in failing to perform safety measures such as installation of an indication in the event of breakdown, etc., it is reasonable to view the Defendants’ negligence and the instant accident as an accident entirely separate from the Defendants’ negligence in light of all the circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, such as the background of the previous accident and the Plaintiff and Nonparty 4’s negligence. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there exists a proximate causal relation

The plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Shin FOBO

Note 1) = 192,285,90 won ¡¿ 0.25 and fewer than KRW 0.25. The same shall apply hereinafter.

Note2) = 192,285,990 x 0.15