logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.21 2016나45143
구상금
Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 7, 2015, around 17:40, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle started driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving it in the front of the parking space, with the intent of parking space located on the left side of the running direction to park by a post-on parking method for the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On February 7, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the parking space, and expanded the space for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter by pushing another vehicle that is parallel in front of the above parking space.

C. When the Defendant’s vehicle stops behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was moving back in the future in order to drive behind the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was discovered and stopped following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle continued to receive the Defendant vehicle while driving behind the vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 220,300 on February 23, 2015 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s vehicle appeared in the right behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and even if it was possible for the Plaintiff to have sufficiently predicted the rear margin of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle was placed behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the instant accident occurred, and thus, the Defendant’s fault is 50%. (2) The Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding following the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Plaintiff

(c) vehicles;

arrow