beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to Cscar vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to Dscar vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. On February 24, 2017, around 01:10, at the three-lane road in front of the “F” of the building E in Osan City, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driving in the two-lanes from the G elementary school distance room to the two-lanes, discovered the body of a strong baby and changed the vehicle into the one-lane. In the process, after shocking the strong baby at the time, he was equipped with a one-lane vehicle at the time, and Ha was able to walk with the first lane (hereinafter “the first accident”), thereby, H came to go beyond the median line of the said road and go beyond the two-lane opposite. (c) On February 24, 2017, at the second two-lane opposite to the two-lane radius of the said road, he did not find any H that was going beyond the Defendant’s vehicle and did not shock it (hereinafter “the second accident”).
H died from severe brain damage at the secondary accident site, and on July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 75 million to H’s spouse I as damages compensation for the said primary accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff H died due to the first and second accidents, and it is reasonable to view that “50% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: Defendant 50%” is “37,500,000 won for indemnity (=7500,000 x 50%)” and damages for delay shall be paid to the Plaintiff.
B. Since there is no proximate causal relation between Defendant 2’s second accident and H’s death, the Defendant should be exempted from liability.
3. Determination
A. Article 760(2) of the Civil Act of the relevant legal doctrine is insufficient to regard it as a joint tort as stipulated in Article 760(1) of the same Act, and where damages are incurred due to the competition of other persons, the burden of proof