beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a driver of D (hereinafter “Defendant”) who is a large dump truck.
B. On January 26, 2019, around 16:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along the two-lane road in the north-gu, North-si, North-si, North-si, and the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,117,530,00, excluding KRW 297,000, to the insured’s self-paid expenses at the repair cost, such as the front glass and set of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above basic facts, the Defendant, who is the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, a large dump truck, caused the instant accident by negligence while neglecting his duty of care to take necessary safety measures, such as fixing cargo loaded on the Defendant’s vehicle during driving so as not to fall off, and thus, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff’s owner for damages equivalent to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
In addition, since the plaintiff paid the above repair cost as insurance money as the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle, the plaintiff can exercise in subrogation the right to claim compensation for damages against the defendant by the owner of the plaintiff vehicle.
B. However, it is not clear whether the main part of the Plaintiff vehicle needs to be repaired, and most of the printing and painting costs out of the repair costs of the Plaintiff vehicle account for KRW 1,022,010. The above printing and painting costs include not only the cost of replacing the front of the Plaintiff vehicle, but also the cost of repairing the NAE, and there is negligence on the part of the Plaintiff vehicle operator who failed to sufficiently secure the safety distance.