beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 36,289,013 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from June 19, 2018 to April 23, 2020.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance court's decision, except for the addition of the "Jasan District Court" in Section 11 of Section 3 of the first instance court's decision to the "Jasan District Court" as "Jasan District Court's Dong Branch", and the addition of the "Jasan District Court" in Section 20 of Section 3 of the 20th 20th 20.
Opinions of the Parties
A. The Plaintiff H’s injury was caused by the first accident of this case, and the second accident of this case did not affect symptoms, and thus, the Defendant is liable for 80% of the injury according to the fault ratio of the first accident of this case.
However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was jointly exempted from liability by compensating for the entire amount of damages to H, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of the judgment that the Plaintiff paid to H and the costs of the lawsuit equivalent to 80% of the total amount of KRW 78,286,285, which is equivalent to 62,629,028, and damages for delay.
B. The ratio of liability asserted by the Plaintiff is merely about the first accident of this case, and the damage of H is reasonable due to the second accident that the Defendant did not take part in the Defendant’s deducted vehicle. Thus, the part that the Defendant is liable to pay out of the amount of damage that the Plaintiff paid to H is less than 80%.
In addition, the costs of lawsuit incurred by the first instance court, which was before the defendant participates in the reimbursement of the costs of lawsuit, are the costs for joint immunity, and the costs of lawsuit incurred by the second instance are not the costs for joint immunity, and there is no obligation to pay to the defendant.
Judgment
A. 1) The facts that H suffered damage due to the first accident of this case are not disputed between the parties. However, the plaintiff and the defendant are disputing as to whether the second accident of this case is recognized as causations with H's injury, and they are examined as to the above facts of recognition and the evidence and evidence mentioned above.