2019Na23281 Claims

A Stock Company

Law Firm Dongsung et al.

Attorney Kim Gi-gi

1. B federation;

2. C.

3. Daehan:

4. Limited partnership E; and

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellant]

5. Stock company F.

Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Da5061549 Decided April 10, 2019

June 11, 2019

June 27, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay 63,645,98 won and 15% interest per annum from December 6, 2017 to the date the judgment of this case is rendered, and 63,645,998 won per annum from the next day to the date the full payment is made.

Further to the evidence additionally submitted in the first instance court’s examination, the conclusion of the first instance court is recognized as legitimate. The reasons for this part are as follows, given that the reasoning for the lower court’s decision is the same as that for the first instance court’s decision, except for the following matters. As such, the same is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of the 8th 12 joint tortfeasor, "from 14 to 14," which is the joint tortfeasor, is as follows.

"The share of responsibility of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, who is a joint tortfeasor, in the internal relationship of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle. The share of liability of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, as seen below, did not affect the conclusion of the case and the subsequent vehicle did not take appropriate measures to recognize the preceding accident so that the subsequent vehicle obstructed the passage of the vehicle over several lanes of the expressway in the situation where it is difficult for the vehicle to know the preceding accident, the part of the impact on the occurrence of the accident should be at least 55%. If the above factors include the impact on the expansion of the damages recognized in light of the characteristics of the cargo as seen below, the share of liability of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, who is the first accident, is considerably more than 5% and less than 10% (However, the determination on the specific share of liability of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle does not affect the conclusion of the case, and it does not affect the conclusion of the above case, and therefore, it cannot be seen that the agreement on the part of the plaintiff vehicle's automobile insurance and the driver's liability ratio is less than 7% of the above part.

○ 8th 17th 17th 17th "Fresh" part of the 9th 1st "Fresh" is as follows.

"On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that since the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle could not get out of the driver's seat due to the occurrence of the preceding accident in this case, it shall not be considered in determining the ratio of liability of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle. However, the legal principles of the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da215904 Decided March 27, 2014 that in the event that it is difficult to expect safety measures due to the injury, etc. after the occurrence of the preceding accident, there is no room for considering the negligence of the preceding driver, and it is applicable to the case where the preceding accident occurred by the driver's own negligence as in this case, and it is difficult to view that the preceding accident occurred by the driver's own negligence as in this case."

○ 11 8 pages "from 10 to 10 'not' are as follows.

“Although it is assumed that the amount to be borne by the driver of the Plaintiff regarding the instant accident is only 55% of the total amount of damages, the Plaintiff only paid KRW 184,114,997, which is apparent in the calculation of the amount that the Plaintiff is substantially deficient to the victim. Therefore, the part of the Defendants’ joint immunity due to the Plaintiff’s departure cannot exist, and the Plaintiff’s right to indemnity against the Defendants cannot be acknowledged.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Sung-sung

Judges Choi Ho-ho

Judges Lee Jae-soo