beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A dump trucks (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B sump trucks (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. At around 15:40 on August 20, 2013, C, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, temporarily stopped in order to deliver the front tag to the driver’s of the Defendant vehicle, who stopped on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, while driving the Plaintiff’s aggregate aggregate construction site D on the road at the permanent residence. However, C did not discover any G having divided conversations with the driver’s F of the Defendant vehicle, which was parked on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, and went on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, and died at around 18:30 on August 20, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 48,159,830 in total to the deceased G’s heir for the purpose of the net G medical expenses and damages for the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 4, 6 through 8 (including each number if the paper numbers are attached) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is higher than that of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the view of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is restricted. The instant accident site, other than the vehicle entering the construction site, did not have any reason for the vehicle to pass or stop. Therefore, it cannot be anticipated that C, the Plaintiff’s driver, would have divided the conversations between the Defendant’s vehicle and the Defendant’s driver into the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time when the vehicle stops and stops again. In such a situation, the Plaintiff’s driver was at a place away from the Plaintiff’s vehicle, not the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and was at a duty of care to divide the conversation with the network.