beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
가. 원고는 2000. 8. 3. 책임보험에도 가입되어 있지 않은 B 차량을 운전하여 가다가 깜박이를 켜지 않은 채 핸들을 과대조작하여 C 차량(이하 ‘피해차량’이라고 한다)의 우측 뒤 문짝부분을 충격하였고, 이 사고로 피해차량에 탑승하고 있던 사람 2명(이하 ‘피해자들’이라고 한다)이 부상을 입었다.
B. Defendant Eastern Fire’s Claim 1) The Defendant Eastern Fire, as the government security business agent, paid damages of 1.4 million won per each person to the victims who suffered from an injury caused by an uninsured motor vehicle. 2) After that, the Defendant Eastern Fire, as Seoul District Court Decision 2003 Ghana170257, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement against the Plaintiff. The Defendant Eastern Fire, as Seoul District Court Decision on performance recommendation on August 11, 2003, was made on August 13, 2003, and the decision on performance recommendation was delivered to the Plaintiff on August 28, 2003, and became final and conclusive on August 28, 2003.
3) After that, the Defendant Dong-dong fire filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gaso625954 for the extension of extinctive prescription and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on October 23, 2013. The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time (the Plaintiff was served with a copy of the complaint at the time, but did not submit any document, but the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff.
). 다. 피고 윈윈화재의 채권 1) 피해자들의 보험회사인 삼성화재해상보험 주식회사(이하 ‘삼성화재’라고 한다)는 피해자들에게 치료비 및 차량수리비를 지급하였다.
2) 그 후 삼성화재는 원고를 상대로 서울지방법원 남부지원 2001가소180720호로 구상금 청구소송을 제기하였고, 위 법원은 원고가 소장부본을 송달받고 아무런 서면을 제출하지 아니하자 2001. 12. 26. 자백간주에 의한 삼성화재의 승소판결을 선고하였으며 위 판결은 그 무렵 확정되었다. 3) 삼성화재는 2007. 1. 4. 원고에 대한 위 채권을 피고 윈윈화재 변경전 상호...