beta
Text
1. Defendant B: (a) KRW 40,850,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 23, 2014 to December 7, 2014; and (b)
Reasons
1. Facts without dispute;
A. Defendant A entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and a named insured person as the owner of the C Passenger Vehicle (hereinafter “A”), and the instant insurance contract is accompanied by a limited agreement with the named insured person.
B. On September 7, 2013, around 16:51, Defendant B driven a sea-going vehicle, and passed around Seocheon 298 km in the direction of the subordinate region in the Enforcement Decree of the Sea-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seong-Seung-Seung-Seung-Seung-Seung-Seung-Seng-
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff, a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance company of the said D Driving Vehicle, paid the victim KRW 40,850,000 in total of the repair cost and towing cost with the insurance proceeds.
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant A, the owner of the sea-going vehicle, is acting on behalf of the victim on the premise that the Defendant A, the owner of the vehicle, bears the responsibility for the operator under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act
However, in case the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for damages under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, it is the time when another person is killed or injured due to the operation of the motor vehicle (Article 3), and it is not liable under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act for physical damage caused by the operation of the motor vehicle.
However, according to the above facts, since the damage caused by the accident of this case is limited to physical and property damage, the defendant A is not liable under the above law (In addition, there is no circumstance to see that the defendant A should be liable for joint tort under the Civil Act with the defendant B who is a driver of the accident of this case).
The defendant B, as the driver of the sea-going vehicle, has exercised due diligence against the defendant B.