beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with A-wheeled Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile B (hereinafter “Defendant”) with a substitute driver who was represented by the Defendant and the substitute driver’s insurance contract with the Defendant.
B. On December 8, 2015, around 22:25, an accident was caused by an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) against C (hereinafter “victim”) in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was going straight along the five-lanes from the five-lanes of Cheongdo-5 lanes prior to the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Cheongdo-ro Cheongdo-ro, Incheon Cheongdo-ro (hereinafter “instant road”).
C. On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,011,560 to the victim’s medical expenses and the amount agreed upon due to the instant accident.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by the proxy driver of the Defendant’s vehicle on the three-lanes of the instant road, which is not a place for getting on and off the Plaintiff, in violation of measures for the safety of passengers, and thus, the liability ratio should be 80%. The Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,009,248 (=5,011,560 x 80%) and the damages for delay paid by the Plaintiff.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred while the Defendant’s substitute driver was stopping on the three-lanes of the instant road due to the signal atmosphere, and the victim was on board the rear seat of the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, released the rear seat locker, and crossing without permission, and there was no negligence against the substitute driver of the Defendant’s vehicle.
B. We examine the judgment, based on the aforementioned facts and the evidence as seen earlier.