beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 2,577,638 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 18, 2018 to September 10, 2020 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a taxi for D business use (hereinafter “Plaintiff-vehicle”), who is a company engaged in the transportation business of taxi passengers.
B. Around March 28, 2018, the Defendant entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with E (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to F vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”) with the insurance coverage period from March 28, 2018 to March 28, 2019; and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).
C. On May 7, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven along the three-lanes of the three-lane road in front of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building, and the Defendant’s driver changed the two-lanes from the two-lane to the three-lanes of the three-lane road in front of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, resulting in an accident that conflicts between the Defendant’s vehicle and the rear even after the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear wheels.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). 【The grounds for recognition” are as follows: (a) Evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 7 through 21, and evidence Nos. 1 to 1; and (b) the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident was caused by the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of safe driving by the Plaintiff’s driver, etc. caused the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff’s fault ratio should be deemed to be more than 30%.
In light of the screen image of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (Evidence Nos. 1 and 2) and the damaged part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident (Evidence Nos. 3 through 21), the Plaintiff’s driver was driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle normally according to three lanes of the three-lane road. However, the Defendant’s vehicle driven at the two-lane back of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without any prior notice, which was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle, without any prior notice, is changing the vehicle to the upper left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.