2013Na26006 Claims

2013Na26013 (Consolidated) Reimbursements

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Corporation

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Da32096, 2013 Decided September 13, 2013

151987 (Consolidated Judgment) Judgment

September 26, 2014

November 28, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the Defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff 27,272,727 won, Defendant A, C, D, and E the amount of KRW 18,181,818 for each of the above amounts, and 20% per annum for each of the above amounts from November 16, 2012 to the service date of a copy of each of the instant complaint, and 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 against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 11:00 on August 26, 2012, F driven by a non-registered fluor (97C; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Oba”) on his/her own, and proceeded to a 513-lane Do road ( approximately 3.1m wide in length) from the superscopary surface to the Descopary surface, while driving the 513-lane Do road ( approximately 3.1m wide in width) on the superscopary surface, F coming to the right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right to the right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right.

B. The defendant Oral Ba did not subscribe to liability insurance under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

C. The Plaintiff, pursuant to Articles 30 and 45(1)1 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013) and Articles 19 and 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013), is an insurance company entrusted with the business of guaranteeing automobile accident compensation under Article 30 illegally by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Upon receiving a claim for damages from the mother L, the sole heir of the deceased LI, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000, which is the maximum amount of compensation for death under the criteria for paying the liability insurance proceeds, to L on November 15, 2012. The deceased received the amount between February 2,231,100 and 2,714,140 won as the amount of benefits paid.

D. Defendant B is the wife of the networkF, and the rest of the Defendants are the children of the networkF.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8 (including each number for additional evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, the Defendants, the deceased F’s heir, are obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the victim due to the instant accident in proportion to their respective inheritance shares, and the Plaintiff, as the trustee of the Guarantee Business of Automobile Accident Compensation, shall be deemed to be within the scope of damages suffered by the victim in light of the various circumstances indicated in the instant argument, such as the net I’s age, occupation, relationship with the network I, and the occurrence of the instant accident and the result thereof. Thus, the Plaintiff may subrogate the victim’s right to compensate for damages to the Defendants on the part of the victim within the scope of compensation already paid pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

In addition, when calculating the Defendants’ shares in inheritance as to the netF’s obligations, Defendant B is liable for 3/11 and the remaining Defendants are 2/11, respectively. Therefore, Defendant A is liable for paying damages to the Plaintiff; Defendant A is liable for paying damages to the amount of KRW 18,181,818 (=2/100,000 + less than KRW 2/11, and less than KRW 2/11; hereinafter the same shall apply); as the Plaintiff seeks after the compensation payment date, from November 16, 2012 to December 3, 2012, the duplicate of the complaint of this case is delivered to the above Defendant; 5% per annum from the following day to December 3, 2012; 20% of the total damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Defendant B is liable for paying damages to each of the above Defendants’ KRW 27,2727 (100,000,000 per annum and 18101.31.1.1.1.2

B. Restriction of liability for damages and set-off claim

1) The defendants' assertion

A) Although the networkF is driving the Defendant Oral Seaba and turn to the left beyond the center line, it is aimed at avoiding the operation of Oral Seaba on the part of the Plaintiff immediately before the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s Oral Seaba going to the center line beyond the center line, and the limitation rate differs to 116.2 km per hour on the road at which the speed limit is 60 km per hour in the course of returning the Defendant’s Oral Seaba to its own bus line. As such, the networkF’s passing over the center line constitutes an emergency evacuation.

B) Furthermore, even if the act of the network F does not constitute an emergency evacuation, in light of the fact that the network I invaded the central line for the purpose of overtaking, and that the rate exceeds 60 km per hour while discovering the Defendant’s Oral Seabs, the network I’s negligence is at least 70%, and thus, the network I’s negligence should be considered in calculating damages. In addition, the networkF’s negligence should be considered in calculating damages for the victim’s actual profit. Furthermore, the networkF has the damage claim of KRW 97,365,437 in total, KRW 40,000 in total, KRW 97,365,437 in total, KRW 40,00 in total, KRW 40,00 in total, KRW 40,00 in total, KRW 97,365,437 in excess of the speed of the network I’s negligence. Therefore, the victim’s claim against the Defendants should be offset.

2) Determination

A) Determination as to the assertion of emergency evacuation

It is examined whether the Plaintiff Orala, as alleged by the Defendants, tried to avoid the accident in the course of the Plaintiff’s failure to drive the central line over the instant accident immediately before the instant accident while returning to his own tea.

In light of the fact-finding on May 7, 2014, the witness of the accident at issue, N, the maker of No. 2, No. 1, as the witness of the accident, was entirely not revealed in each of the statements at A and D police immediately after the accident at issue. ③ Even if Oralone was not exposed to the front direction of the accident site, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s front right-hand part of the equipment was invaded by the central line, and it was hard to conclude that the front right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s front direction-hand part of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, and that there was no scientific evidence such as a scambling, etc. of the Defendants’ surface, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was a conflict between the Defendants’ front right-hand part of the accident at the time of the accident at issue.

Furthermore, in light of the background leading up to the instant accident and the road width of the road where the instant accident occurred, it is difficult to deem that the network F was inevitably unable to commit the central line in order to avoid shock with the Plaintiff’s Obane.

Therefore, since the act of the networkF does not constitute a single mother or an emergency evacuation, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

B) Determination on comparative negligence and set-off argument

In general, a driver of a motor vehicle who operates a road with a central line along his/her own lane is trusting that he/she will drive the motor vehicle on his/her own lane. Thus, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the motor vehicle of the other party, the other motor vehicle has not been obliged to drive the motor vehicle on the right side of the two-lane or road in advance, and even if the other motor vehicle has violated traffic regulations, such as driving beyond a limited speed, even if the driver has failed to drive the motor vehicle, he/she has failed to drive the motor vehicle on his/her own. If the other motor vehicle's central crime of the other motor vehicle was discovered, it can be deemed that the speed operation was negligent only when the other motor vehicle could avoid collision by immediately accelerating or avoiding the collision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da4469, Apr. 10, 1992; 200Da67464, Feb. 9, 2001).

At the time of the instant accident, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff had been proceeding at a speed of 116 km per hour on the part of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the following circumstances are revealed to be clear, namely, the 10th day of the accident at the time of the accident, and the surface was also clear, and there seems to be no hindrance to securing the field of view in light of the straight-line road. ② The road of this case is one-lane, and the road of this case is one-lane, even if the road of this case is adjacent to farmland, it seems difficult to recognize that the road of this case is driving on the side or changing the line without any serious damage, even if the network is discovered, it is difficult to find that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was a conflict between the road of this case and the road of this case, and the road of this case, the road of this case is driving on the side or changing the line. It is difficult to find that there was a conflict between the road of this case and the road of this case and the road of this case, even if it is difficult to find that there was a conflict between the road of this case and the road of this case, and the road of this case, the road of this case cannot be seen from the central road of this case.

Therefore, there is no reason for the defendants' assertion on the premise that the network I was negligent.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the appeal by the Defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

presiding judge, judge Park Byung-chul

Judges Gindo.

Judges Lee Jae-sung