beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,011,122 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 1, 2017 to August 16, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Status 1) The Plaintiff is a party to CNS car (the change of the number of the vehicle to D after the accident, hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
[Attachment 1] An insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the attached Table 1. 2) The Defendant is a mutual aid provider who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to the E Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the attached Form 1 de facto survey report.
B. Around 4:20 on August 9, 2016, F, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, changed the vehicle line into two-lanes from the Cheongpung JC bank in accordance with one-lanes of the three-lanes at the 3.8km of Pyeongtaek-si Cheongpon Highway 3.8km. F, with the front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front left side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving ahead of the two-lanes, was shocked, and stopped on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “first accident”);
Attached 1. 2) G driving a H cargo vehicle (attached Form 1.2, hereinafter referred to as “nurt cargo vehicle”) and driving two-lanes in the same room as Pyeongtaek Gyeongcheon Highway.
After the first accident, the defendant was not found to have stopped, and it was concealed as it was without discovering the defendant's vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident”). G died after receiving treatment at a hospital.
C. The Plaintiff’s driver’s drunk driving F is subject to a summary order of KRW 1.5 million on the ground of the fact that the Plaintiff’s driver operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle from Seosan City to the point of accident while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.060%.
(1) The Plaintiff paid KRW 55,610 of G medical expenses to the hospital. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 95 million to the bereaved family members of G. G. 2) The Plaintiff’s age, occupation, income, etc. are as shown in attached Table 2.
The plaintiff judged that the ratio of negligence in G was 60% and paid the agreed amount.
E. The plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to automobile insurance.