2017Na33109 Damage

A

DB insurance Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gaso201588 Decided May 12, 2017

September 8, 2017

November 24, 2017

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,774,130 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the judgment of the first instance of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 13, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. The Plaintiff is a person driving a private taxi vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insured as shown in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on March 18:58, 2015, while driving the first lane of the 4-lane road near the shooting distance of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office (hereinafter “instant road”). D was immediately stopped by deeming D to cross the said road without permission. However, D was in excess of the instant road (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, D suffered injury, such as the salt pan and tension in the part of the blue base, the blue part of the instant road.

C. The Defendant determined that D was faced with the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the instant accident occurred, and paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,168,600 in total of KRW 782,050, and the agreed amount of KRW 1,386,550 in order to compensate for damages incurred by D due to the instant accident.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

D is not against the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle was reported to play on its own. Also, since D was in the absence of permission at the time of the instant accident, there was no negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident to the Plaintiff. Therefore, even though the Defendant did not need to pay the insurance money to D, the instant accident was deemed an insurance accident under the instant contract, and thus, the Defendant erred in paying the insurance money.

The insurance premium was increased due to the defendant's negligence in performing the above duties, and the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant 2, 3 of this case, and additionally paid KRW 1,774,130 to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages 1,774,130 won and damages for delay incurred by the plaintiff due to the above erroneous business handling.

3. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following paragraphs (1) through (3) of the evidence Nos. 1 through (7) and circumstances acknowledged as a comprehensive consideration of the purport of the entire pleadings in the video, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was negligent in concluding the contract Nos. 2 and 3 with the Plaintiff on the ground of the insurance premium calculated by taking into account the above facts of the occurrence of the instant accident and the degree of injury inflicted upon D, and there is no other circumstance or evidence to deem that there was negligence in the performance of the Defendant’s duties. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the Defendant was negligent in performing his duties is groundless.

1) The Plaintiff asserts that there was no conflict between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and D with respect to the instant accident. However, according to the video of the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle can be acknowledged.

2) The Plaintiff asserts that there was no negligence on his part with regard to the occurrence of the instant accident. However, considering the fact that the instant road is a general road, not a motorway (50 km a speed limit), which is a general road (50 km a speed limit), where there are many people in apartments and commercial buildings around that road, and that the time when the instant accident occurred is 6:58 minutes a p.m., but it is still when there are many people in the vicinity of the road, since the time when the instant accident occurred is no longer than 6:0 p.m., it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the Plaintiff with regard to the instant accident even if there was a significant fault of D who illegally crossed the instant road without permission (D’s negligence is nothing more than

3) According to the criteria set by the Defendant, when an insurance premium is increased due to an insurance accident that constitutes a personal compensation, the fact of the insurance accident and the degree of injury of the victim shall be taken into account. Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff’s negligence is recognized as to the occurrence of the instant accident, insurance premium shall be increased according to the criteria set by the Defendant, irrespective of the ratio of negligence of the Plaintiff

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It

The presiding judge shall transfer the number of judges

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judges Lee Jin-hoon