Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Han & Han, Attorney Ahn Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Dong Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 13, 2005

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Kadan46094 Delivered on December 21, 2004

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay 34,946,852 won to the plaintiff 1 and 7,48,904 won to the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

Plaintiff 1 pays 30,000,000 won to the Defendant.

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the following judgments are added to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant asserts that the injury suffered by the plaintiff 1 was not directly shocked to the motor vehicle of this case, but occurred during the process of cutting down the plaintiff 1's hand room and cutting down the plaintiff 1's hand room. Thus, since it is not caused by the operation of the motor vehicle, the plaintiffs cannot be held liable to the defendant under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 8-3, 5, 6, and 7, the plaintiff 1 may recognize the fact that the plaintiff 1 met the right side of the front side at the time of the accident of this case, and the non-party 2's testimony of the defendant 2 who seems contrary to this, is not believed, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition.

Even if Plaintiff 1 does not directly face the instant automobile, in the case of the so-called non-act accident, the causal relationship can be acknowledged in light of the objective risk from the operation of the instant automobile in a case where the reasonableness between the operation and the accident is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 197). In light of the circumstances of the instant accident as seen earlier, there is a proximate causal relationship between the operation of the instant automobile and the injury of Plaintiff 1. Thus, the instant accident is caused by the operation of the instant automobile.

Therefore, the defendant's above argument is not correct.

The defendant asserts that the amount deposited by Nonparty 1, the perpetrator of the instant accident, to Plaintiff 1, should be deducted from the amount of damages.

However, according to the statement No. 8-27 of the evidence No. 8-27, the fact that Nonparty 1 deposited KRW 5,00,000 with Plaintiff 1 as the person who was deposited. However, according to the statement No. 8-2 of the evidence No. 8-2 of the same case, Nonparty 2 is driving the motor vehicle of this case at the time of the accident of this case, and Nonparty 1 is driving the motor vehicle of this case, and Nonparty 1 was driving the motor vehicle of this case at the time of the accident of this case while getting on the back of the driver’s seat of the motor vehicle of this case and was carrying out the part of the motor vehicle of this case, he was carrying 4 million won in cash, check No. 100,000, KRW 700, KRW 100,000, KRW 7, credit card No. 3, and the savings passbook and resident registration certificate, etc. of this case, it can be recognized that it was deposited in order to be considered in the sentencing of the criminal case of this case.

Therefore, the above amount of KRW 5,00,000 deposited by Nonparty 1 is to compensate for criminal damages inflicted on Plaintiff 1 due to the aforementioned theft and bodily injury, and it is difficult to recognize that it is to compensate for the property damages inflicted on Plaintiff 1 due to the instant accident caused by the vehicle operation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not correct.

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is not justified, it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jo Hee-de (Presiding Judge)