beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 2,274,140 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from October 9, 2014 to September 22, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On August 26, 2014, around 12:15, the occurrence of a traffic accident, at the fourth-lane near the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the rest area of the city of Honam Highway, D, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, occupied a part of the four-lane and parked on the side while emergency lights on the side, while the Plaintiff vehicle driven a four-lane.
피고차량의 좌측 뒷부분을 추돌하고 3차로로 튕겨나가 3차로를 주행 중이던 화물차량(E, 이하 ‘화물차량’이라고 한다)을 다시 추돌하였다
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 10,370,70,70 with the insurance proceeds from the Plaintiff’s own vehicle’s loss security against the Plaintiff’s vehicle (i.e., KRW 65,700, KRW 550,000, KRW 30,000 - KRW 330,000,000), and KRW 1,00,000 with the indemnity against the freight vehicle, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2, 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, video and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the fact of the occurrence and scope of the liability for damages, A, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is negligent by neglecting the Defendant’s vehicle’s duty of care at the rear side because it was not operated properly while driving the expressway, which is a straight line.
Therefore, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff, who is the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the owner of the Defendant vehicle.
However, the above facts of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 4, and images and arguments.