logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.14 2020나33345
구상금
Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay is revoked, and that part is revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On June 7, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the 6-lanes of the lub village road in the direction of the 327-lanes on the 4-lanes, and changed the course to the 5-lanes after the intersection, and conflict with the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the 5-lanes on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On June 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,077,330,00, after deducting KRW 305,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance money.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 9 (including branch numbers), video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. In light of the following circumstances, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was driven at the fourth lane at the time of the instant accident, appears to have driven as it is without a sense to not yield the course, while the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have changed the course of the vehicle without properly checking whether there is a vehicle driving the five-lane vehicle, and in light of the background of the instant accident, the degree of the vehicle collision, and the degree of the damage, etc., the instant accident was caused by the negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and it is reasonable to view the accident as 60:40 in light of the various circumstances as seen earlier.

B. Insurance money paid by the Plaintiff within the scope of indemnity is paid on the basis of its own vehicle damage security.

arrow