beta
Text
1. From June 28, 2016 to July 5, 2017, the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of KRW 232,00 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A observer vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B put-in vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).
B. On April 26, 2016, at around 13:25, the Defendant’s vehicle waiting in Daegu East-gu, Daegu-dong (hereinafter “instant accident”) had not discovered the Plaintiff’s vehicle moving from three lanes among the three-lanes and shocked the part of the lower vehicle’s right-hand corner on the left-hand corner of the lower vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 464,400 of the insurance money as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, or the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence that the driver of the defendant vehicle did not live well while the driver of the vehicle in this case while the driver did not live well, and it is reasonable to view that the ratio of the driver's negligence of the defendant vehicle is 80%. Thus, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to pay the plaintiff the 371,520 won corresponding to the ratio of the driver's negligence of the defendant vehicle in the insurance proceeds paid to the plaintiff (=4,400 won x 80%)
In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the accident of this case was not negligent for the driver of the defendant vehicle, since the plaintiff's vehicle was illegally towed and the defendant's vehicle was shocked according to normal signals.
B. According to the above facts of determination, the accident of this case was shocked without finding the plaintiff's vehicle, which was driven by negligence while the defendant was on the front side and left side while the vehicle was driven by the defendant.