beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of the automobile transport business, etc., which uses liquefied petroleum gas as fuel (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1 taxi”).
) and B-si (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff 2-si”);
2) The Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract concerning C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant 1 vehicles”) and D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant 2 vehicles”).
B) Around 22:40 on July 13, 2013, E driven Defendant 1 and proceeded in violation of the signal signal in the direction of the correction tunnel at the Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Busan-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Busan-dong, and the direction of the process. Around 23:10 on August 19, 2013, G was driven by Plaintiff 1-si, who was driven by F in the normal direction in the normal direction from the right side of the direction of the process, and the front part of the Defendant 1-si, who was driven by F, who was driven by F, in the normal direction in the normal direction in the right side of the road. (ii) On August 23:10, 2013, G was driven by Defendant 2, driving the Defendant 1, who was in violation of the signal direction from the Jinna-dong, Busan, to the right side of Plaintiff 2, who driven the right side of the H to the normal signal from the direction of the NA.
(hereinafter referred to as the "each of the traffic accidents of this case" combined with the above traffic accidents / [the grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, and 10 each of the statements and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the fact of recognition as above, since each of the traffic accidents in this case occurred due to the violation of signal signals between E and G, the defendant is the insurer of defendant 1 and 2, and the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff 1 and 2 cab due to each of the traffic accidents in this case.
3. Scope of damages.
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2-3 through 7, the Plaintiff may recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,078,770 to the repair cost of the Plaintiff 1 taxi due to each traffic accident in the instant case, 4,94,274, and the repair cost of the Plaintiff 2 taxi.