Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant (Attorney Kim Yong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 28, 2009

Incheon District Court Decision 2008Gau212799 Decided October 27, 2008

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,496,80 won with 5% interest per annum from March 15, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty 3 on Balbry Motor Vehicle (vehicle number omitted) owned by Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a sales liability insurance contract with Nonparty 3 on the charge of liability for damages arising from the business operation with ○ Automobile Industrial Complex.

나. 위 ○○자동차공업사 직원인 소외 1은 2007. 2. 10. 10:00경 고객이 맡긴 (차량번호 생략) ■■ 승용차(이하 ‘피고 차량’이라 한다)를 운전하여 인천 계양구 영신자동차 사거리 교차로 앞 편도 3차로 중 1차로를 따라 천대고가 방면에서 홈플러스 방면으로 진행하던 중 차량 직진신호를 위반하여 유턴한 과실로, 마침 반대 방향에서 진행 중이던 소외 5 운전의 원고 차량 앞부분을 피고 차량의 오른쪽 앞부분으로 들이받았고, 그 충격으로 원고 차량이 밀려나가 소외 2 주식회사 담벼락과 충돌하고, 그 담벼락이 무너지면서 담벼락 안쪽에 세워져 있던 소외 4 소유의 (차량번호 생략) ○○ 승용차를 손상시켰다(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다).

C. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is expected to scrap the front part of the vehicle, such as the engine damage, and the said ○○ Car was damaged by the front part of the vehicle, and the said ○○ Car was damaged by the front part of the vehicle, and the external burden of Nonparty 2 Company was damaged.

D. On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. for the repair cost of the unhulled rice, and on April 20, 2007, paid KRW 8,830,000 in compensation for the Plaintiff’s vehicle scheduled to be scrapped to Nonparty 3, and on July 18, 2007 and March 14, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,66,80 in total to Nonparty 4 for the repair cost of the said ○○ Car, respectively, and paid KRW 11,496,80 in total as the substitute property compensation insurance.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

(a) Liability for damages and occurrence of the right of indemnity;

1) According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case occurred due to Nonparty 1, the driver of the defendant vehicle, who violated the signal.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the non-party 5, who is the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, and that the accident of this case occurred due to the non-party 1's negligence in violation of the signals, or because the non-party 1's negligence in violation of the signals, the non-party 5 could sufficiently witness the process of the illegal internship if the non-party 1 had taken the front-way, so if the non-party 5 viewed the front-way, the non-party 1 could sufficiently witness the process of the illegal internship. Thus, even if the safety measures such as reducing the speed of driving at hand should be taken to prevent the accident from occurring due to the failure of the accident

The facts that Nonparty 1, the driver of the vehicle of the Plaintiff, violated the signal as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as seen earlier, Nonparty 5, the driver of the vehicle of the Plaintiff, entered the intersection before reaching the crosswalk at the entrance of the intersection, confirmed that the front signal was green signal, etc., confirmed that the yellow signal, etc. was turned on within the intersection, followed the speed of the yellow signal, etc. in order to promptly pass the intersection, followed by finding out that the Defendant vehicle want to be a U-turn in the front direction, followed the speed, followed by finding out that the Defendant vehicle want to be a U-turn in the front direction, but the fact that the Defendant vehicle was a U-turn as it is, can be acknowledged.

Unless there are special circumstances, the driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by signal, etc., is sufficient to ensure that other vehicles are also believed to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid collisions, and there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of accidents in advance, as it is anticipated that other vehicles violate traffic regulations, and the other vehicles are driving along their course to avoid collisions, and that there is no duty of care to take special measures to prevent accidents in advance.

Therefore, as seen above, as long as Nonparty 5 entered the intersection according to the progress signal and discovered that yellow light, etc. will be turned through the intersection as soon as possible, it is reasonable to deem that Nonparty 5 fulfilled his duty of care, as alleged by the Defendant, inasmuch as he discovered that the Defendant’s vehicle intends to drive a U-turn at the front side and led to attention by sounding the light, it is reasonable to deem that he fulfilled his duty of care. There is no evidence to deem that Nonparty 5 breached his duty of care by failing to perform his duty of care, such as by failing to comply with the duty of

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) As long as the instant accident occurred due to Nonparty 1’s negligence, who is the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident, and Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 2, who are the owner of the instant vehicle, and the owner of the hulled rice, respectively. The Plaintiff, who paid the insurance money, such as vehicle repair expenses, to the said victims, acquired the right of indemnification against the Defendant within the scope of payment in accordance with the legal doctrine of subrogation by the insurer under

In this regard, the defendant shall compensate the insured for damages caused by the insured's liability under the terms and conditions of automobile insurance. Therefore, the plaintiff's compensation for the above ○○ car and hulle damage is premised on the negligence on the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, who is an insured vehicle, and if the plaintiff's vehicle is not negligent, the plaintiff's payment of the insurance money is illegal and does not meet the requirements for the insurer's subrogation.

On the other hand, in light of the standard terms and conditions for automobile insurance, the insurer compensates the insured for damages in cases where the insured legally liable for damages occurs or is likely to occur except for the matters exempt from the payment of the insurance money under the terms and conditions (unlicensed driving, drinking driving, etc.). Therefore, it is justifiable that the Plaintiff paid the insurance money to the owner of the above ○○ Car and the non-party 2 corporation, the victims, while the rate and negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not revealed. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(b) Scope of the right of indemnity;

The Plaintiff paid KRW 11,496,800 in total to the victims of the instant accident to Nonparty 3, etc., as seen earlier, and the fact that the said amount is within the scope of damages suffered by the said victims due to the instant accident is not clearly disputed by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to claim the full amount of the said money to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the 11,496,800 won as indemnity amount and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 15, 2008 to June 4, 2008, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Full-time (Presiding Judge)