beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to vehicles C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and D (hereinafter “third vehicle”) respectively. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to vehicles E (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On March 12, 2019, around 12:25, the Defendant vehicle driven along the two-lanes of the road in the direction of Busan in the south Sea Highway located in the window-Eup of Changwon-si, the two-lanes of the road in the direction of Busan, and changed the two-lanes into one-lane. The immediately following, the third vehicle was bound to avoid a collision with the vehicle driving ahead of the foregoing, and accordingly, the third vehicle driven behind the third vehicle (hereinafter “the first accident”), and the Plaintiff vehicle driven behind the third vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”). As a result, the Plaintiff vehicle driver sustained the injury, such as light salt, tension, and the heat of a protruding signboard.
C. As to the primary accident, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on 60% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle and 40% of the negligence of the third vehicle.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,187,630 (treatment costs) to the driver of the Plaintiff during the period from March 19, 2019 to April 25, 2019, and paid KRW 1,829,90 (agreement amounting to KRW 1,129,990) to the driver of the third vehicle, and received KRW 758,990 as the indemnity amount from the Defendant.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 12, and Eul evidence 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments]
2. The Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 531,00,00 and KRW 1,187,630,000, excluding the amount already recovered, from the amount of medical expenses, etc. of the driver of the third vehicle, within the scope of the judgment of this court. The judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed among the claims for reimbursement, such as medical expenses of the driver of the third vehicle, and only the part concerning the claim for reimbursement for the medical expenses of the driver of the vehicle.