beta
Text
1. On April 8, 2014, around 21:00, with respect to traffic accidents occurring near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government UNB (NB) Seocho-gu.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
가. 원고는 에스케이네트웍스 주식회사와 사이에 B 에쿠스 차량(이하 ‘원고 차량’이라 한다)에 관하여 보험기간 2014. 5. 4.부터 2015. 5. 4.까지로 정하여 자동차종합보험계약을 체결하였다.
B. At around 21:00 on April 8, 2014, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the vicinity of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul (NB), and shocked the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and shocked the front part of the D re-scheduled Vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and the front part of the front part of the driver’s seat.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 7 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, the video of Eul evidence 2, and the purport of all pleadings.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that in relation to the accident of this case, the plaintiff only bears the obligation to pay insurance proceeds of KRW 1,00,000,000 for the repair cost of the defendant vehicle and KRW 1,350,000 for the daily rent of KRW 3,50,000 for the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance proceeds to the defendant does not exceed the above amount. 2) The defendant asserts that in relation to the accident of this case, in relation to the repair cost of the defendant vehicle, the defendant suffered damages of KRW 10,61,320 for the total amount of KRW 8,482,320 for the repair cost of the defendant vehicle and KRW 13,00 for the repair and estimate of the vehicle of this case, and thus, the plaintiff has the obligation to compensate the defendant for damages equivalent to the above amount.
B. The part concerning the repair cost No. 4 related to the judgment No. 1 included a studing machine that is difficult to recognize the necessity of replacement due to the instant accident, and according to the images of No. 3-2 and No. 3, it appears that the studs between the Defendant’s driver and the studs of the body after the instant accident were maintained without punishing the studs. Thus, the Defendant’s vehicle is a criminal offender due to the instant accident.