beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is against the plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C as the insured (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “the instant insurance contract”). The instant insurance contract includes ① self-vehicle security agreement to compensate for losses incurred by insured vehicles, ② automobile injury security agreement to compensate for losses incurred by the insured’s death or injury, ③ non-insured automobile accident security agreement to compensate for losses incurred by the insured’s death or injury, and ③ non-insured automobile accident security agreement to compensate for losses incurred by the insured.
Around 08:15 on October 20, 2017, the Defendant, while driving FOba (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on or around 08:15, in the absence of liability insurance, was negligent in neglecting the duty of care on the left side of the Defendant vehicle and caused injury, such as cutting off in the right fabal of the original fabalon, which requires approximately 12 weeks of treatment, to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”), and to E, by neglecting the duty of care on the left side of the Defendant vehicle.
On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid E with insurance proceeds from the instant accident: ① 8,570,000 won for automobile repair under the special agreement for self-motor vehicle security; ② from December 14, 2017 to December 18, 2018, totaling KRW 15,106,080 for medical expenses under the special agreement for motor vehicle injury security; ③ from December 18, 2018 to February 1, 2019, the Plaintiff paid to E with totaling KRW 15,983,680 for medical expenses and compensation for damage under the special agreement for motor vehicle injury security; and ③ from December 18, 2018 to February 1, 2019, totaling KRW 39,656,760 for KRW 8,570,00 for KRW 15,106,080 for KRW 15,983,680).
[Ground of recognition] The defendant's fault ratio in relation to the accident of this case is at least 80%, which is a summary of the plaintiff's argument as to facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images as Gap's 1, 2, 3, 7 and 16 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
The accident of this case occurred by the defendant's negligence is E.