logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.07.17 2019나62795
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Basic Facts

(1) The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with C and D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with a term of mutual aid from April 27, 2017 to April 26, 2018, and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E passenger cars (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) On February 27, 2018, around 18:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded at the twit-type intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”) from the H village to I, one way from the H village, where traffic control was not performed by signal, etc. in the vicinity of the Gchosong-gun F, Y, and the Defendant’s vehicle proceeded directly from the Jpublic Security Center, which is the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, to I way.

Plaintiff

In both the vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle entered the instant intersection without temporarily suspending, even though there was a red flashing signal on the front side. During the above-mentioned progress, there was a conflict between the front door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Defendant’s left side of the vehicle.

(3) The Defendant paid KRW 8,353,980 for the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle (excluding self-charges) and the K Deliberation Committee determined the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as to the instant accident at 60%: 40%; the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,012,390 to the Defendant on November 30, 2018.

[Ground of appeal] The plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle's fault in the accident of this case are 30%: 506,194 won (=the insurance money paid by the defendant 8,353,980 won x 30%) in accordance with the subrogation legal principle of insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, since it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's fault in the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle in this case as to the accident of this case as to Gap's evidence 1 through 6, Eul's evidence 1, Eul evidence 7, video evidence 7, and the purport of argument

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the Defendant.

arrow