2012dan5102400 Amount of indemnity

Dong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

September 26, 2013

November 7, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 218,790,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 30, 201 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the insurance period from October 20, 2009 to October 20, 2010, with respect to a domestic worker's disaster security liability insurance contract with a limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Shodong"), with a limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Shodong"), with a limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Shodong"), with a limited liability company of KRW 500 million per person per accident, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with a limited liability company of KRW 500 million per accident.

B. At around 16:00 on January 8, 2010, C, a worker of Sungdong-dong, received a type C lecture in the length of 10 meters transported from the floor to the same upper part of the warehouse from the warehouse by the operator of the instant carcles, from the warehouse operation upper part of the Kacles located in Yongnam-gun, and from the warehouse construction site of the steel structure in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “the instant accident”). At around 16:0, C suffered from the injury, such as an electric image of the 3 to 4 degrees above the part, and an external stress disorder, etc. (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff paid C insurance money of KRW 257,400,000 due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The accident of this case, as a driver of the instant carcas, had C maintain a sufficient distance from the high-tension cable, and caused the collision between A’s mistake and the management and supervision of sexual dynamics, and the fault ratio between A and sexual dynamics was 70:30, and the Plaintiff, who is the insurer of sexual dynamics, paid KRW 257,40,000 insurance money to C, thereby jointly exempting the Plaintiff from liability. Thus, the Defendant, as an insurer of the instant carcas, is liable to pay the Plaintiff for indemnity amount of KRW 180,180,00 based on joint tort (i.e., KRW 257,40,000 x 0.7) and the indemnity amount of KRW 38,610,00 based on double insurance (i.e., KRW 257,400,000 x 05,000 x 05.3) and delay damages.

B. Determination

First of all, as to whether A had been able to perform the duty of care to prevent the electric shock accident at the time of the accident, it is difficult to recognize that there was no obstacle between C and C at the time of the accident. However, as to whether C had been able to perform the duty of care to prevent the electric shock accident, it is difficult to recognize that C had been able to recognize the difference between C and C, the height difference between C and C, and the distance between C and the above high pressure line, as well as the distance between C and the above high pressure line, and it is difficult to recognize that C had been able to view that C had been able to recognize the accident of this case by considering the following circumstances, namely, ① while playing the role of signalling, C was in charge of the location and direction of C, and A was carrying C with the driver of the instant Kacke in accordance with C’s instructions, and it is difficult to view C as having been able to recognize that C had been able to recognize the accident of this case during the time of the accident of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-kon