2019Na2987 Claims

A Stock Company

Attorney Choi Jong-min et al., Counsel for the defendant

1. B

2. C Stock Company:

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gaso176759 Decided December 19, 2018

October 16, 2019

November 27, 2019

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 14,051,90 won with 5% interest per annum from May 19, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The place of appeal;

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revocation part is dismissed in entirety.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a business compensation insurance contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as D) and the user compensation liability insurance contract. Defendant B is the owner of E dump trucks (hereinafter referred to as “instant dump trucks”), and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C Co., Ltd.”) is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract for the aforementioned dump trucks.

B. D entered into a construction machinery lease agreement with Defendant B who operates H for G construction subcontracted by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. However, around 11:00 on April 17, 2015, at the construction site of this case, the victim J, the traffic signal number of the D affiliated vehicles, had led the progress of the dump truck of this case at the construction site of this case, and there was an accident in which the victim, who was the driver of the dump truck of this case, dump truck of this case, led the victim to suffer injury, such as crushing and crushing of dump truck of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "accident in this case").

D. As a result of the assessment of the instant accident, the victim’s negligence was recognized to be 20%, and the amount of the assessment was determined to be KRW 14,051,90,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 14,051,90,00 as insurance money to the victim on May 18, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Occurrence of liability for payment of indemnity;

1) According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred both the negligence in the management and supervision of D, the person in charge of the construction of this case, and the negligence of the dump truck driver of this case. Thus, Defendant B, the operator of the dump truck of this case, is liable to compensate for the damage inflicted on the victim.

However, in light of the fact that the victim had a duty of care to prevent safety accidents by inducing the progress of the dump truck of this case as the guide signal number for the vehicle, and that the accident of this case occurred while dump truck of this case sump truck of this case sump truck of this case eump truck of this case eump truck of this case eump truck of this case eump truck of this case eump truck of this case eump truck eump truck

2) On the other hand, the instant accident appears to have occurred due to shocking the dump truck driver who was going back without properly examining the rear, and the driver's negligence appears to have been serious. However, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident, etc., such as D who was responsible for safety management at the construction site of the instant case but failed to properly manage safety, it is reasonable to view that D's negligence ratio is 30% and 70% of the negligence ratio of the instant dump truck driver.

(b) Calculation of the amount of indemnity;

1) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the argument in the foregoing evidence, the victim’s damage caused by the instant accident may be recognized as constituting 14,051,90, and the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who subrogated D’s claim for damages (i.e., KRW 9,836,30,000 (=14,051,900 x 70%) and to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from May 19, 2016 to December 19, 2018, the date of the first instance judgment, which is the date of the payment of insurance money, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation.

2) As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the part of the victim’s number is caused by the instant accident, and that in calculating consolation money, it is excessive for the victim to calculate the amount of damages, such as erroneous application of the loss rate of disability in light of the statements in the evidence No. 9, No. 13, and No. 14. However, it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ above assertion in light of the contents of the evidence No. 9, No. 13, and No. 14 (Evidence No. 12), it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ above assertion [in accordance with the K K agency’s review opinion (Evidence No. 12), the restriction on the movement of balance 's balance 's '

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-sung

Judges Kim Yong-min

Judges Kim Jong-hwan