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. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A, Grandroth Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C, Inc., owned C, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the automobile for C, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
B. Around 19:00 on January 7, 2014, D driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the road beyond the front part of the Plaintiff’s left side of the road, with a single lane of 114km road located at a 14km point in Busan, Seoyang-si, Busan, and the fourth-lane road located at the port of the Seoul, which is located at the port of Busan, due to the collision with the central separation zone in front of the Seoul.
(hereinafter “1st accident”). The first accident occurred due to D’s negligence, even though the person had a duty of care to temporarily stop in the vicinity of the said rocketing car or to safely drive the car by checking the front left, as it may be on the expressway.
C. Next, the Defendant’s vehicle running in the same direction discovered the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was trying to stop due to the primary accident, late later, and shocked the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “second accident”). D.
In relation to the second accident, the defendant paid 3,287,00 won to G and 7 others as damages.
E. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for deliberation on the claim amounting to KRW 1,972,200 on the premise that the liability ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is 60%. The said claim amount deliberation committee determines the liability ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on May 19, 2014 to 30% and 70% of the liability ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff determined the liability ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on May 19, 2014 to the Defendant. 3,287.