beta
Text
The Defendants jointly share KRW 48,531,970 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 16, 2019 to September 3, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an accident insurance contract for Non-Party D and E (hereinafter “Insurance Vehicle”) with respect to Non-Party D, and Defendant B is the driver of the Fwheeled Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant D”) and Defendant C is the owner of the two-wheeled Vehicle.
B. On May 10, 2017, at around 15:40 on May 10, 2017, Defendant B, a traffic accident without the pertinent license, driven the Defendant B-wheeled Vehicle, and driven the three-lane road in front of the Hadern-gu Seoul Southern-gu G at a speed of about 50-60 kilometers in a similar distance direction from the Dowingdo, the bus central line was changed to the bus stop signal at a speed of about 50-60 kilometers in a similar distance direction, while the signal continued to proceed at the same speed, in violation of the signal, while the signal continued to proceed at the same speed, and the part adjacent to the left side of the Defendant B-wheeled Vehicle of Nonparty I, a pedestrian who dried the crosswalk pursuant to the new subparagraph on the left side of the Defendant B-wheeled Vehicle, and the said I exceeded the road above and caused a serious traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as “the instant traffic accident”).
C. Under the insurance contract concluded with Nonparty D, the Plaintiff paid KRW 101,531,970 (i.e., agreement amounting to KRW 46,200,000, KRW 55,331,970) as a sum obtained by deducting 10% of the negligence of the Defendant E-wheeled Motor Vehicle from the total amount of damages during the period from August 25, 2017 to January 15, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) In light of the circumstances of the instant accident, in the event of the instant accident, the negligence of the Defendant-wheeled Vehicle’s non-licensed signal violation ought to be deemed to be 90%. 2) The Defendant-wheeled Vehicle’s crosswalk is a pedestrian road, and as such, I should be led to the instant two-wheeled Vehicle.