logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.24 2016가단93271
구상금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A shall be jointly and severally and severally liable for 34,250,000 won with Defendant Hansung Damage Insurance Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The pertinent Plaintiff is an insurer of C Vehicle C driven by B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant Han Lan Insurance Co., Ltd. concluded an insurance contract with respect to D vehicles driven by Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”) with a maximum of KRW 10 million liability for the liability of the large damages.

B. On December 20, 2014, around 17:22, the instant accident occurred and around 73 km in the direction of the Sincheon-si, Macheon-si, Incheon Highway, where the Defendant vehicle driven the first lane or the second lane, and there was an accident corresponding to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had been driven in the middle bank to the third lane due to an abnormal change in the course from the middle bank to the third lane. On December 20, 2014, the U.S. vehicle, which was driven while driving at the rear bank of the Plaintiff vehicle, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 36,00,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and returned KRW 1,750,000 from the modern sea, which is an insurance company of the U.S. vehicle in the future.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including the branch numbers) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 34,250,000 for damages paid by the plaintiff as insurance money, in accordance with the subrogation legal principle of the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act. The plaintiff's assertion can be determined by the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle in relation to the accident of this case.

(2) The main purport of the Defendants’ assertion is that the instant accident occurred due to an excessive speed exceeding 100 km due to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the front side while neglecting to take an urgent action. The Plaintiff’s compensation amount paid is the cost of replacing the parts paid by the Plaintiff to new products.

arrow