beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the D-Wed Vehicles of C Driving (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Wed Vehicles”), and the Defendant is the insurer of the E-containered Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-Wed Vehicles”).
B. On September 17, 2016, at around 06:25, C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the two-lanes from the front side of G river located in F of Busan Landong to the multiple-lane. On September 17, 2016, C, while changing the two-lanes to three-lanes, he shocked the Hmera truck (hereinafter “instant Mmera truck”) that was driven on the three-lanes, followed by the shocking side of the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked in the right emergency parking zone.
(hereinafter “the instant accident”). The instant accident killed I, who was on the back seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and C suffered injury.
C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 261,962,440 to C by November 23, 2016, KRW 2,795,650, and KRW 261,962,440 to the deceased I’s successors until November 30, 2016.
At the time of the accident of this case, the accident site map is as shown in the attached Form.
[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Although the emergency parking zone where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked on a regular parking zone cannot be always parked at a place where the traffic flow was prepared in the surrounding area in the accident vehicle or the temporary emergency situation, the Defendant’s vehicle was on a regular parking.
If the above vehicle was not parked in the above parking space, it would have ceased to stop in the emergency parking zone or stop due to the curbstones, which is the boundary of the roadway and India, after shocking with the instant met truck.
However, the defendant's vehicle higher than the plaintiff's vehicle, leading the plaintiff's vehicle to the lower side while shocking the defendant's vehicle, which led to the expansion of damage caused by the accident in this case.
(ii).