beta
Text
1. With respect to traffic accidents listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the plaintiff is the defendant based on the insurance contract stated in the separate sheet No. 2.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. B, at around 14:30 on January 23, 2015, due to the negligence that the Defendant neglected the duty of front-time care while driving a son in front of the Hyundai Motor Agent in Gyeyang-si, Busan Metropolitan City, and caused the collision between the left-hand fences of the DNA-si, which was set up in front of the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Agent in order to obtain new delivery from Hyundai Motor Vehicles.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
Due to the instant accident, the parts of the above DNS vehicle were damaged, such as the front fences of the DNS vehicle, and 330,000 won (= repair cost of KRW 230,000,000) was required as repair cost.
C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the foregoing B and C E-wheeled Vehicle, and the Defendant is the owner of D NAN vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's common terms and conditions of automobile insurance stipulate that "where the cost of repairing a motor vehicle due to an accident (limited to a motor vehicle which has been less than 2 years after its departure) exceeds 20% of the value of the motor vehicle immediately preceding its release, 15% of the cost of repairing a motor vehicle shall be paid, and 10% of the cost of repairing a motor vehicle shall be paid for more than one year but not more than 2 years after its release." DNA motor vehicle constitutes a motor vehicle for not more than one year after its release at the time of the accident, but its repair cost (330,000 won) is less than 20% of the value of the motor vehicle immediately preceding its release (49,800,000 won) and the plaintiff did not bear the obligation to compensate the defendant for damages.
As such, the confirmation is sought as the lawsuit of this case.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff, the insurer, should compensate for the damages, since the price of the DNS vehicle owned by the defendant was reduced by 3 million won or more due to the accident in this case.
(b).