beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,015,375 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 2, 2016 to May 4, 2018, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C with respect to the B-Enived vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).
B. At around 21:30 on July 12, 2016, the Defendant: (a) driven the said vehicle to drive on behalf of the Erosp vehicle; and (b) was negligent in driving the road near the F in the vicinity of the Erosp vehicle at the seat of the Erosp vehicle, and was negligent in driving the road near the Erosp vehicle at the seat of the Erosp vehicle at the seat of the Erosp vehicle at the seat of the Erosp vehicle; (c) stopped the rear of the above truck on the number unfolding road which he stopped; and (d) stopped the said truck on the two-lanes of the side road.
C. The Defendant stopped a rodice vehicle in the straight section because there is no point or streetlight at the rapid speed of the vehicles, and at the time of the accident. While the Defendant left a drunk D while driving a truck driver and talking in the vicinity of the truck, D left a two-lane off from the vehicle, and died due to a shocking two-lanes in the front line and glass part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running a two-lane in the direction of the intersection in the rodice station.
The Plaintiff paid 180,061,500 won in total to the bereaved family members of D by September 1, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found by the Defendant’s obligation to pay indemnity money, the instant accident is deemed to have been caused by the Defendant’s negligence, which stopped on the road side, not on the safe side, because the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence, who did not see D on the road, and neglected the duty to stop on the front side while driving on behalf of the Plaintiff’s driver, who did not see D on the road, while driving on behalf of the Plaintiff’s motor vehicle, and caused the Defendant’s negligence, which stopped on the road side of the road, which is not on the safe side length, despite the safe side length. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant.