beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,050,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 1, 2002 to August 1, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The pertinent Plaintiff is a person who performs a guarantee business entrusted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with the authority to compensate victims within the scope of liability insurance when a person dies or is injured due to the operation of a motor vehicle not covered by the liability insurance system pursuant to Article 30(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the Defendant is a driver of the motor vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. At around 06:30 on May 5, 2001, C was prosecuted on the following grounds: (a) the two-lane road in front of the Seodo-Eup Seodo-Eup Seoyang-do-si at the Namyang-si was driving a DEE-type car from the Seoul Central line; and (b) the Plaintiff was charged for causing each injury to G H, I, and E while driving the EE-type car from the Seoul Central line; and (c) the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,000,000 as insurance money to the Defendant, the victim, as the victim.
3) After all, during the proceedings of the appellate court in the case of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against C, etc., the Prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment with the purport that C was not guilty of failing to discover the Defendant’s vehicle, which goes beyond the central line, and the appellate court convicted C of the changed facts charged after granting permission. On November 6, 2004, the appellate court reversed the above appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case to the Panel Division of the Government District Court for the following reasons: (a) there is no room to deem that C had any special circumstance that could have predicted the operation of the Defendant vehicle in an abnormal manner, such as the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against C, etc.; and (b) C applied for changes in indictment to the purport that C was not guilty of the facts charged with the alteration of the Defendant vehicle, which came beyond the central line.
2. Determination.