본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.02.18 2015가단9031

1. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff was filed by Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court 2015 Ghana 107021.


1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A and A-Ped vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C and Costex vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 5, 2014, around 7:30 on August 5, 2014, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded with a shooting distance in front of the penta-dong, Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, and the Defendant’s front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Among the shooting distance in which the instant accident occurred, the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s driving is comprised of four straight lines, including the two straight lines, the two straight lines, and the right-hand and right-hand turn lines, and the width is 22.5 meters in total. The Defendant’s driving line consists of two straight lines, such as one straight line and one straight line, and the two straight lines, and the width is 15.7m in total and 3.6m in the Central Safety Zone is 12.1m in total.


The direction of the vehicle and the direction signals of the defendant's vehicle are all yellow-off signals.

E. On August 8, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 5,610,00 to C for scrapping expenses under the non-life insurance contract for the Defendant’s own vehicle, and thereafter, the Defendant asserted that the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle was 80% on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was accelerated in connection with the instant accident, and that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 4,640,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from August 9, 2014 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case,” the Defendant filed a claim for reimbursement, and the said court decided to recommend performance on May 8, 2015, and became final and conclusive as it is.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-6, Eul 1-5, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Prior to judgment.