logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.12 2018가단5005730
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,561,00 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 6, 2018 to August 12, 2020, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the user of E who drives a vehicle D on September 2, 2017, which was at the time of the instant traffic accident (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 15:00 on September 2, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in a camping site located in Gyeonggi-si F, Gyeonggi-do, but the Defendant’s vehicle in the vicinity was working for loading and unloading stone.

As a previous vehicle, the Plaintiff was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time, E was driving the Defendant vehicle without carefully examining the ground condition of the instant accident site, which is the place of loading and unloading.

Due to the accident in this case, the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged.

C. On January 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,561,00 to G, a victim, as vehicle repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 (including additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the factual relations prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant is liable for damages suffered by G due to the instant accident as the Defendant’s user, who is the Defendant’s driver, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 33,561,00 to G in accordance with the instant insurance contract. As such, the Plaintiff is deemed to have subrogated acquired the damage liability owed by G to the Defendant within the scope of the insurance amount paid pursuant to Article 682(1) of the Commercial Act.

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the instant accident did not carefully examine the ground condition of the instant accident site where E, who is an employee of the Defendant, is the place where E, is to be unloaded, and caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is the parking lot, in the vicinity of the Defendant’s vehicle by negligence, and otherwise, the Plaintiff’s vehicle may avoid the instant accident.

arrow