beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,427,448 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 21, 2016 to February 28, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (Defendant vehicle).
B. On August 26, 2015, around 17:40 on the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon: (a) caused an accident that the Defendant vehicle, while driving at a point 1.6 km away from the south-west, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, caused the destruction of loaded materials on the road, and the vehicle behind the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “two vehicles”) caused the destruction of the loaded materials on the road.
(hereinafter referred to as "first accident"). (c)
In other words, 5 vehicles in order to avoid the foregoing falled down, and 4 vehicles in compliance with the subsequent stop were 5 vehicles, and there was an accident in which 3 vehicles were able to conceal 4 vehicles.
(The foregoing 3,4,5 vehicles shall not know the number of the vehicle; hereinafter the same shall apply).
Due to the same circumstance, D(8 vehicles) and E(7 vehicles) were stopped in the order of order, but the plaintiff's vehicle did not stop and concealed 7 vehicles after the latter, and 7 vehicles were concealed due to the shock.
(hereinafter referred to as "third accident"). e.
The Plaintiff paid 12,546,800 won to eight drivers of vehicles for medical expenses and 13,478,050 won for eight vehicle repair expenses, and paid 537,880 won for medical expenses and 7 vehicle repair expenses, and 574,510 won for 7 vehicle repair expenses, and paid 7,031,070 won for 7 vehicle repair expenses, and paid 350,000 won for 2 vehicle repair expenses.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that each of the accidents of this case is concurrent between the negligence of the defendant vehicle, which caused the fall on the road by neglecting the management of loaded goods, and the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle.