beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 10,385,698 and 5% per annum from September 26, 2012 to October 27, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of claims for indemnity;
A. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is a juristic person operating an industrial accident compensation insurance business entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Insurance Act”); Defendant A is a driver of the newly-built passenger vehicle in B (hereinafter “aggress”) and Defendant CF Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant CF Insurance Co., Ltd.”) is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to a sea vehicle.
(2) On October 26, 2010, Defendant A driven a sea-going vehicle around 15:45, and caused the victim to suffer injury to the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the left-hand part, the 3rd part, the 2, 3, 44 et al., the 2nd part of the Hato-in D (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) driven by the negligent act of violating the signals (in spite of the stop signal, the entry to the intersection) while driving the 3rd-ro, the subway-ro 3, the subway-ro Do-ro, the 3rd part of the subway-ro, the left-hand part, the 2, the 3, and the 4nd part, etc.
(3) Until September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff paid 4,569,440 won for medical care benefits, 12,214,790 won for temporary disability benefits, and 10,043,470 won for disability benefits, respectively, pursuant to the Industrial Accident Insurance Act.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 8, Eul's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the recognition of liability for damages and the recognition of the occurrence of indemnity claims, Defendant A was negligent in driving a vehicle in violation of safety obligations, such as excessively entering the intersection despite the stop signal as the driver of a sea-going vehicle, and thereby resulting in the instant accident.