beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,88,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 10, 2015 to January 23, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The facts of recognition (1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with the insured as the DNA industry, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a liability insurance contract with B for daily life compensation.
(2) On August 12, 2014, B, around 06:20, around 06:20, the Plaintiff, who was on the crosswalk in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, had a bicycle and walked the Plaintiff’s vehicle going to crosssection by receiving normal signals on the two-lanes in violation of the signal.
(3) On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,88,000 to the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the insured of the plaintiff's vehicle due to the accident of this case as the insurer, and the plaintiff paid the insurance money to the insured of the plaintiff's vehicle, thus exercising the right to claim the payment of the insurance money against
2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion that since the vehicle in the first line did not depart from the place of the vehicle, even though the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was in a state of direct and cross-section signal at the time, it is doubtful that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle could not turn to the left, and that the driver of the vehicle should have entered the intersection with due care as to whether the vehicle in the first line did not turn to the left, and that there was a negligence.
In other words, the following circumstances recognized by Gap evidence 3 images, namely, the bicycle rider opened the crosswalk at a relatively rapid speed and shocked the plaintiff's vehicle, and there are other vehicles in the first line, and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle needs to view it.