beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,294,50 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 24, 2015 to November 23, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to C Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. Around 09:30 on September 25, 2015, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the three-lanes of the 19.4km road in the direction of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the Handong Highway at a point of 19.4km in the direction of the Gangseo-dong Highway, and the driver of the Defendant vehicle invadedd the four-lanes of the four-lanes, driving the four-lanes on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle driving the same four-lane in the front bank
Due to the shock, the plaintiff's vehicle re-convened with the front part of the Incheon Track (hereinafter referred to as the "Track Track") which was driven in the two-lanes of the same road while moving in the visual opposite direction.
hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"
(C) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was entirely destroyed due to the instant accident, and in relation to the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s loss, KRW 34,250,00 insurance proceeds, KRW 55,00, KRW 375,500, KRW 34,680,500, KRW 19,200, KRW 940,000, and KRW 1,473,960, KRW 1,614,000, and KRW 21,614,00,00 for the repair cost in relation to the instant accident, and KRW 19,20,00, KRW 34,250,00, KRW 55,00, and KRW 375,50,00 for the sales commission, KRW 375,50,00 for the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s loss, the purport of each of the entire pleadings, including various numbers, is as follows.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case is an accident caused by shocking the plaintiff's vehicle prior to the three-lanes and four-lanes by neglecting the duty of Jeonju City, and thus, it is an accident caused by the whole negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle.
(The Defendant alleged that the instant accident occurred by changing the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the fourth to the third fourth lane. However, according to the evidence adopted, the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident is recognized as being driving in the fourth lane. Accordingly, the Defendant is therefore recognized.