209Na4023 Claims

O000000 Stock Company

Seoul

Service Place: Cheongju

i.e., i.e., i.

Attorney Park Yong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Chungcheongbuk-do

Cheongju-si substantial Gu Culture Dong 89

The Do Governor's Do Governor's Legal Representative

Attorney Shin Jin-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Cheongju District Court Decision 2008Gaso87406 Decided July 24, 2009

March 23, 2010

June 18, 2010

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment of KRW 9,984,90 to the plaintiff as well as 5% per annum from November 12, 2008 to June 18, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 60% of the total litigation costs are borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,641,50 won with 5% per annum from November 12, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings on Gap evidence 1 through 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, testimony of the witness at the trial court, and testimony of the witness at the trial court.

(a)west, on June 12, 2008, 16:30, Chungcheongbuk-do,****** △-ri of Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-gu, the west-do highway, ***** the west-gu, the west-do highway, the speed of which was unflued, was unflued, unfed, unfluened (hereinafter in this case hereinafter referred to as the “speed-prevention speed”), caused by the operation of the bus, without wearing a safety seat mark on the rear of the bus.

◇, 김▣▣ 2명이 자리에서 튕겨져 올랐다가 바닥에 주저앉으면서 윤소은 흉추 압박 골절의 상해를, 김▣▣은 다발성 좌상 등의 상해를 입게 되었다.(이하 이 사건 사고라 한다 )

나 . 원고는 위 버스의 소유자인 합자회사 ○○○○과 사이에 위 버스 운행에 관한 자동차종합보험을 체결한 보험자로서, 2008. 7. 24.부터 2008. 11. 11.까지 윤소에게 치료비 및 합의금 등으로 32,308,590원을 지급하였고, 2008. 6. 30.부터 2008. 7. 24. 까 지 김▣▣에게 치료비 및 합의금 등으로 974,410원을 지급하는 등 이 사건 사고로 인 하여 피해자들에게 합계 33,283,000원의 보험금을 지급하였다.(위 보험금이 정당한 범 위내의 손해배상금인 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.)

C. The road in the above accident site is a local highway approved by the law No. 83 of July 10, 1981, and is managed by the Chungcheongbuk-do.

2. Occurrence of claims for indemnity;

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

① The Plaintiff was installed in violation of the height of 10cc and 360cm in length, which is the installation standard of the atomic speed. ② The Defendant, even at the time of the instant accident, left it to the right side of the mother bridge, without coloring it. ③ At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant did not install a guidance sign informing that the rapid speed is installed, and even at the time of the instant accident, the direction sign was installed in front of 50 meters from the said signboard, but was actually installed in front of 86.2 meters in fact, and ④ “the maximum speed limit 30km” was installed in front of the instant case at the time of the instant accident, and thus, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s installation of the road at the right side of the road traffic accident at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant’s installation of the road at the same time and at the same time did not make a report to the head of the police station at the same time and at the same time during the construction period.

In this regard, the Defendant: (a) installed in compliance with the height of 10 cm, which is the installation size, but changed to pressure; (b) even if that length exceeds 360 cm, the degree of slope is reduced by completing the slope; (c) on the ground that fluids contained in an Arabic container cannot be colored up to the speed limit; (c) on the upper part of the guidelines for installation and management of the speed limit, the direction signs to prevent the speed limit are installed at the point of the road manager without any regulation for the point of installation; and (d) on the road at the point of the instant crosswalk, the Defendant asserts that there is no regulation for the point of installation; and (e) on the road at the point of the instant crosswalk, the driver does not have any jurisdiction over the point of installation; and (e) on the road at the point of the instant case, the Defendant asserts that the direction signs to prevent the speed limit does not have jurisdiction over the point of the instant case; and (e) on the point of the instant case, the Defendant does not have jurisdiction over the point of the road manager.

B. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 9-1, 2, 11, Eul evidence 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence 11-1 through 4, Eul evidence 11-1, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 12, the testimony of the first instance court, Kim○-○, witness of the trial court, and the results of the on-site inspection of the court of the first instance.

(A) Around June 12, 2008, the day when the instant accident occurred, the Defendant set up the speed prevention threshold of the instant case. Around June 12, 2008, the road where the speed prevention threshold is installed is the straight line of one lane. At the time of the instant accident, the direction sign informing that the speed prevention threshold exists at the point 152 meters prior to the instant accident, 86.2 meters prior to the point 50 meters prior to the instant accident, the crosswalk notice sign was installed at the point 77.3 meters prior to the instant accident, and the crosswalk notice sign was installed at the point 56.3 meters prior to the crosswalk, and at the point 31.3 meters prior to the instant accident, the crosswalk notice sign was installed at the point 56.3 meters prior to the road, and at the starting point of the mother school at the place where the speed prevention threshold of the instant case is located, the speed restriction sign was set at the speed of 30km.

(B) On the other hand, according to the regulations on the installation and management of the speed prevention guidelines, the speed prevention guidelines shall be installed in the front of the school and other places deemed necessary to control the speed of the vehicle at a speed of 30 km or less per hour, and the installation standards shall be 3.6 meters or more in length of the installation, and the height of the installation shall be 10cm, the surface shall be colored in half, the signs that there is an overspeed prevention level on the road, and the signs that indicate a distance from the speed prevention level to the speed prevention level shall be installed at 20 to 250 meters from the speed, and the traffic safety regulations signs, such as traffic safety regulations, which provide the maximum speed at the road section where the speed of the road is installed at a speed of 30 km or less per hour, and traffic safety regulations signs shall be installed.

(C) The height of the instant overspeed is 8cm to 12cm, the length is 390cm to 395cm, and the surface was not colored at the time of the instant accident.

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to set up a speed prevention threshold in compliance with the installation standards set forth in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations so that he/she safely passes the speed prevention threshold, install guidance signs and speed restriction signs, etc. to inform that he/she has such speed limit, and accurately indicate the contents thereof, but in violation of the relevant regulations, he/she is at a higher level and length than the installation standards set by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., and he/she is at the time of the accident at the time of the accident in this case, and at the time of the accident in this case, he/she did not color the above speed prevention threshold with reflects (in the case of the accident, he/she should have taken other appropriate measures to prevent the accident before setting up the speed limit at the night of the accident (in the absence of the time of the accident in which the speed limit is set up, the distance between the speed limit and the speed limit, and the driver's safe installation of the speed limit and the point of the accident in this case, or the driver's safe installation of the road in this case.

Therefore, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred when the defect in the construction of the speed limit of this case was concurrent with the defect in the construction of the speed limit of this case, which the plaintiff is a person.

와 각자 위 교통사고로 윤소 , 김▣▣이 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있는데, 원고 가 보험금을 지급하여 피고를 면책시켰으므로 피고는 원고에게 그 책임비율에 상당하 는 금액을 구상할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

3. Limitation on liability; and

In the following circumstances, the above recruitment evidence and evidence No. 6 evidence and evidence No. 6 and testimony of the witness of the party examination may be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the oral argument: (i) the road on which the accident of this case occurred is usually driven and the road No. 30km per hour before the speed limit is restricted; and (ii) the speed limit was colored at 31.3 meters before the speed limit; and (iii) the speed limit of the instant case was at the speed of 40 through 50 kilometers before the accident of this case; and (iv) the point at the time of the accident of this case was at the speed of 40 to 50 kilometers; and (v) the mistake rate of responsibility between the plaintiff and the defendant is reasonable in consideration of this point.

4. Scope of the right of indemnity;

나아가 구상권의 범위에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 살핀 바와 같이, 원고는 2008. 11. 11. 까지 윤소소에게 치료비 및 합의금 등으로 32,308,590원을, 2008. 7. 24.까지 김▣▣에 게 치료비 및 합의금 등으로 974,410원을 각 지급하였는바, 이는 윤 , 김▣▣의 손 해액의 범위 내에 있는 적정한 금액이라고 할 것이므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 33,283,000원(= 32,308,590원 + 974,410원) 중 피고의 책임비율에 해당하는 9,984,900 원(= 33,283,000원 × 30 %) 및 위 금원에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2008. 11. 12.부터 피고가 그 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당하다고 인정되는 당심 판결 선고일인 2010. 6. 18.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5% 의 , 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진등에관한특례법이 정한 연 20 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 금원을 지급할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognized amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Gyeong (Presiding Judge)

Kim Young-young

Magjin-jin