beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 22:30 on April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the road located in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-do from the F room to the interesting side, and went ahead by disregarding and straighting the suspension signal, etc., the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection with a yellow signal, etc. in the opposite direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving direction (hereinafter “instant accident”), and thereby, G, H, and I suffered each injury on the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. By August 8, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,233,00 for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 4,132,480 for G’s medical expenses and agreed amount, KRW 3,836,260 for H’s medical expenses and agreed amount, and KRW 3,785,470 for the first medical expenses and agreed amount, and paid KRW 18,987,210 in total.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages for delay, equivalent to 9,493,605 won (i.e., KRW 18,987,210 x 50%) and the amount of damages for delay, which amount to 50% of the Defendant’s share of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff as indemnity.
B. The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total fault or main fault (at least 90 per cent) of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection, in violation of the signal, even though the signal of the front intersection was red signal. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement exceeding the error ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle cannot be complied with.
B. We examine the judgment, the basic facts and all of the arguments in each of the above evidence.