2013 Mada801920 Reimbursements

○○ Damage Insurance Co., Ltd.

Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul")

Daegu Suwon-gu at the place of service (hereinafter referred to as "service space").

○○○○

Law Firm ○○, Attorneys ○○-○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The National Freight Trucking Federation

Seoul Seocho-gu (hereinafter omitted)

Daegu-gu Office of Service (hereinafter referred to as "office of service")

Representative Director Kim ○○

Attorney ○-○, et al.

June 25, 2013

July 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 22,320,168 won with 5% interest per annum from February 1, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The insured vehicle of the Plaintiff received the rear part of the damaged vehicle standing on the right side of the road while driving. Accordingly, the damaged vehicle was faced by the Defendant’s side behind the insured vehicle standing in front of the vehicle and the driver of the damaged vehicle suffered injury. Since the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds from the above accident to the victims, the Defendant is obliged to recover the amount equivalent to the Defendant’s fault of the insured vehicle that contributed to the expansion of the above accident and damage.

2. Facts of recognition and judgment

A. Facts of recognition

(1) On November 17, 2012, 01:15, Kim○ operated the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle of 40 U.S. and 650 U.S., the 40 U.S. and 650 U.S., which was the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, proceeding three lanes from the three-lanes adjacent to the U.S. C. Gaamamamb in Daegu north-gu, Daegu, into the cambane at the seat of the national open-line. However, at the time of the accident, Kim○ was under the influence of 0.165% of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.165%.

(2) The damaged vehicle, which was being pushed ahead of the previous accident, was in front of the previous accident, to receive the rear part of the Defendant’s insured vehicle’s 80 U.S. Freeboard 80 U.S. 49000, which was parked in front of the accident (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”, “the second accident”).

(3) Due to the instant accidents, the ○○○○, which had been aboard the victimized vehicle due to the instant accidents, was damaged by the Defendant, and the damaged vehicle was destroyed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 74,400,560 in substance, including treatment costs, daily profit, and repair costs.

(4) The site of the instant accident is almost soon a straight line, and the center is the yellow solid line of the two lines, and the yellow domin line between the two sides of the road and the sidewalk stone.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

This paper examines whether the act of parking the Defendant's vehicle at the location of this accident contributed to the occurrence of the second accident and the expansion of the damage.

Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act provides that the stopping of a vehicle shall be allowed at a place where yellow domin lines are sent by the road. Article 516 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the parking of a vehicle shall be allowed.

위와 같이 이건 사고 도로는 차량의 정차만 허용될 뿐 주차가 금지된 곳임에도 피고측 차량이 주차되어 있었던 사실은 인정된다. 하지만 앞서 든 증거들과 변론 전체의 취지로 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들에 비추어보면 그와 같은 주차 행위가 이건 2차 사고 및 손해확대와 상당인과관계가 있다고 보기는 어렵다. 즉, 비록 이건 사고 지역이 차량의 주차가 금지된 곳이기는 하지만, 차량의 정차는 허용된 곳이고, 인근 주민 등의 차량들이 상시적으로 줄을 지어 주·정차되어 있는 곳 이다2). 또한 피고측 차량이 그곳에 없었다고 하더라도, 1차 사고로 인해 앞으로 튕겨져 나간 피해차량이 그 앞의 전신주, 가로등, 가로수 등에 부딪힐 개연성도 있다.

On the other hand, according to the above evidence and Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), Kim○, who driven the plaintiff's vehicle at the time of this case, was under the influence of alcohol concentration 0.165%, and it is recognized that the road at the accident site is a broad straight line with no visual obstacle.

In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to see that the accident occurred by the unilateral negligence of Kim0, a driver of the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff, and it is difficult to see that the parking of the defendant vehicle contributed to the occurrence of the accident or the expansion of damage in this case, and there is no other evidence to support this.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is dismissed without examining any further claim. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Chang-soo

1) The accident drawings are as shown in the attached Form. The vehicle for the plaintiff, the Ma2 Vehicle for the plaintiff, the Ma3 Vehicle for the damaged vehicle, and the Ma3 Vehicle for the defendant.

2) According to the field photographs (Nos. 3 and 5) submitted in the course of the pleading and the actual fluence of the site using the Internet map, following:

On the three-lane which is the most right-hand side of the road of this accident, a large cargo vehicle, bus, etc. shall be parked at all times.

In addition, unlike the first and second lanes, it seems that there are almost no driving of the vehicle due to dust, sand, etc. on the surface.

c)in person;