beta
Text
1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the payment order of Seoul Central District Court No. 201 tea 16651.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 14, 2009, when the Plaintiff did not purchase mandatory insurance, at around 19:42, 2009, the Plaintiff d's left head part, etc. on the right side of the said road (hereinafter "victim") was shocked from the front side of the said vehicle while driving a car of the 88 Olympic Games located in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, along with four-lanes in front of the quarter of the cancer, according to the 88 Olympic Games located in 509, the Plaintiff brought the victim into a vegetable state by shocking the victim's head part, etc. on the right side of the said vehicle, which was the front side of the said vehicle's right side, while driving the car of the Kapo-gu, U.S. in the 19:42-gu, Gangdong-gu.
B. In accordance with Article 37(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the Defendant entrusted the guarantee business of the government for non-insurance vehicles with the payment of KRW 118,904,870 to the victim of hospital treatment costs and agreed amount.
C. On March 3, 2011, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order claiming the payment of KRW 118,904,870 for the reimbursement of KRW 118,90,870 with the Seoul Central District Court. On March 15, 2011, upon receipt of the said court’s decision that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant KRW 118,904,870 and its delay damages,” the Defendant was determined on May 20, 2011.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff did not violate the duty of safe driving under the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act in relation to the instant accident. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the instant accident.
Therefore, since the defendant cannot claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff with respect to the insurance money paid to the victim, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case is unfair.
B. The defendant.