beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 4,238,150 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 7, 2017 to October 30, 2018.
Reasons
1. In fact, the Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and Defendant New Daily Aircraft B (hereinafter “Defendant”) is the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle B, and Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
C A. A third party driver’s license agreement was made to the effect that Defendant New Daily would not receive insurance benefits in the event of an accident by a third party, other than lessee, while leaving the Defendant vehicle from Defendant New Daily.
Plaintiff
D, on August 20, 2016, around 15:23, the driver of the vehicle, was driving in the direction of the distance of the cultural center located in Yan-Eup in Yan-si in Yangju-si, and as a third party other than a lessee, E driving the vehicle into the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the vehicle was damaged by shocking the side side of the Plaintiff vehicle, and D was injured.
By December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 56,918,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to F, and paid KRW 4,238,150 to D for medical expenses and the amount agreed upon until April 6, 2017, and filed a lawsuit against E for the claim for reimbursement of KRW 56,918,00, which is the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s repair cost, against E, and received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (this Court Decision 2017Da505943, Dec. 8, 2017).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9, Eul 1's entries and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The following circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, namely, E did not examine whether a vehicle was directly engaged in entering the location of the instant accident, such as facts acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, and the Defendant’s vehicle tried to turn to the left at a three-distance distance.