2010 Ghana27790 Claims

Plaintiff

Daegu Metropolitan City

April 3, 2012

May 1, 2012

1. The defendant pays to the plaintiff 60,057,728 won and 38,500,000 won among them, 5% per annum from July 30, 2011 to May 1, 2012, and 20% per annum from March 10, 201 to May 1, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant pays to the plaintiff 257,390,265 won and 165,00,000 won among them, 5% per annum from July 30, 2011 to the date of the pronouncement of each of the instant judgments from March 10, 2012 and 20% per annum from the following to the date of full payment.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On June 26, 2008, at around 02:35, Nonparty 1 driven a 0.224% alcohol level (hereinafter “accidentd vehicle”) and brought to the left-hand-hand-hand-hand-on road of the Taecheon-gu, Nam-gu, Taecheon-gu, Daegu-gu, to the prone-on level from the large-wing bridge, and then fell into the front-hand-down (hereinafter “instant accident”). Nonparty 2, who was on the top of the steering of the accident vehicle, was injured by the instant accident, such as the mouth 10 on the top-hand-down and the breast damage of the water.

B. Nonparty 2 and his father Nonparty 3 filed a claim for damages against the Plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, and the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) subsequently won to Nonparty 2 for the payment of KRW 582,181,929, KRW 3,000 per annum from June 26, 2008 to February 16, 2012, and KRW 5% per annum from June 26, 2008 to February 16, 2012, and KRW 20 per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive. The Plaintiff paid KRW 857,967,550 per annum as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

D. The Defendant, as a road manager in which the instant accident occurred, installs and manages structures such as protective fences, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 6-9 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of liability for indemnity;

A. Grounds for liability

1) On the road with a height higher than that of other roadways, vehicles are likely to enter other roadways, and vehicles, such as places that deviate from the road and are likely to cause secondary accidents, should be installed with a strong protective fence in the section where it is considered absolutely necessary to prevent the vehicle from getting out of the road (see, e.g., Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs' established rules and regulations on road safety facilities).

2) The location of the accident is the intersection between the large-wing intersection and the sloping. On the left side of the running direction of the vehicle involved in the accident, there is an underground vehicle passing through the large-wing intersection, and the height difference on the roadway is about 6 meters.

3) At the time of the instant accident, at the location of the instant accident, there was a brupt protection fence in the form of sticking the pipe of the materials of the bomb in the prop counter, and the height thereof was about 70cm including the curbstone (the fact that there was no dispute, Gap evidence 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

4) The location of an accident is where there is an underground lane installed on the left side, and even if a number of protruding situations are placed in the direction of the accident, the vehicle is away from the course and fall behind it and is highly likely to cause an accident. Although the Defendant, who is the managing agency, has installed safety facilities (a dump protection fence or other protective fences equipped with strength equivalent thereto) with strength sufficient to prevent the fall, only a pipe-type protective fence with weak strength was installed. The protective fence of the accident site was not equipped with safety ordinarily, and the accident in this case occurred due to the defect in the construction and management of the road.

5) Since the instant accident conflicts between the defect in the construction and management of the road managed by the Defendant and the negligence of Nonparty 1, the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, the Defendant, the joint tortfeasor, is liable to compensate for all the damages incurred by the instant accident along with Nonparty 1.

6) Since the Plaintiff paid insurance money to the Plaintiff and jointly exempted, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff money equivalent to the share of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

C. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the insurance money, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay the insurance money. In other words, the accident vehicle is the first-aid vehicle, and the accident occurred while the non-party 1 used it for the purpose unrelated to the carriage of the patient and caused the accident.

According to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the operation of a motor vehicle means the use or management of the motor vehicle according to its usage regardless of the transportation of people or goods (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act), and the operation of the motor vehicle on the road by driving the motor vehicle, such as an ambulances, shall be deemed to fall under the operation of the motor vehicle, and there is no ground to deem that the accident occurred while transporting the patient only

3. Scope of liability for compensation;

A. In the event that one of the joint tortfeasors is dissatisfied with the claim for damages filed by the victim, and the amount recognized in the judgment was paid as compensation for damages, and the other joint tortfeasor is jointly indemnified, the amount equivalent to the ratio of the other joint tortfeasor's fault among the amount jointly indemnified, as well as the statutory interest and other costs that cannot be avoided after the date of joint immunity can be claimed for damages.

B. Unexploitable costs and other damages include litigation costs incurred in the course of the lawsuit by a joint tortfeasor. Among the attorney's fees paid by the joint tortfeasor, money within the reasonable scope based on the rules on the inclusion of litigation costs in the attorney's fees, such as the rules of the affiliated attorney's meeting, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the difficulty of the case, the progress of the lawsuit, and the result of the judgment, etc. may be claimed as irrecoverable costs and other damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da48257, Oct. 12, 1995). In light of the aforementioned circumstances of the accident, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of the defendant's negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case is 7%. The amount of the defendant's claim for compensation to be borne by the defendant is 60,057,728 won (857,967,50 won, 7%, and the litigation costs spent by the plaintiff are reasonable amounts in light of the

D. As to the above money and its KRW 38,50,000 among them (the Defendant’s share of the judgment amounting to KRW 550,00,00), the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 30, 2011 following the date of payment to July 30, 201, and 21,557,728 (the Defendant’s share of the payment of the money) from the date following the date of payment to the date of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, from March 10, 2012 following the date of the final payment of the insurance money to the date of each of the instant judgment, and from the following date to the date of full payment to the date of each of the instant judgment, damages for delay calculated at each rate of 30% per annum as stipulated

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Conciliation Exchange