logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.22 2019나55110
구상금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. From February 20, 2018 to April 6, 2019, the Defendant paid KRW 3,980,000 to the Plaintiff and its related costs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C regarding D vehicles owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the owner of E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 12:00 on December 7, 2018, the Plaintiff’s driver stoppeded the road near the Seo-gu Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, in Seoul to the tent, due to the accidents that occurred before. The Defendant did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the vehicle was pushed up to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle while pushing ahead the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On February 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,980,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s total negligence, which neglected the duty of the preceding week, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,980,000 of the above insurance money that the Plaintiff paid to C in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act and delay damages.

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's failure to discover the plaintiff's vehicle which was stopped due to the defendant's failure to perform his duty of care in the front stop and due to the defendant's failure to find the plaintiff's vehicle which was parked, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for all damages suffered by

However, the Plaintiff, as an insurer, paid KRW 3,980,00 to C with insurance proceeds, so the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 3,980,000, pursuant to the subrogation legal doctrine of insurers under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, and 5% as prescribed by the Civil Act from February 20, 2018 to April 1, 2019, which is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, from February 20, 2018.

arrow