beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. (1) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B Freeboard Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(2) Around 07:00 on November 7, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle was driven along a four-lane from the downstream of the Kimpo Airport to the four-lanes of the parallel direction of 37 km from the 4th line, and the vehicle driven by the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1 vehicle”) following the Defendant’s vehicle was driven along the vehicle. The F vehicle following Nonparty 1’s vehicle (hereinafter “Nonindicted 2 vehicle”) led to Nonparty 1 to the rear of the Nonindicted 1 vehicle.
(2) According to the Road Traffic Act, the driver of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle of Nonparty 1 and the driver of the vehicle of Nonparty 2 are driving the vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle involved in the conversation between Nonparty 1 and the vehicle of Nonparty 2, who is parked in the first accident. As a result, the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision between Nonparty 1 and the vehicle of Nonparty 2, and the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision between Nonparty 1 and the vehicle of Nonparty 2, and the driver is injured by the vehicle of Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the second accident”). According to the Road Traffic Act, the driver of the vehicle shall take necessary measures to prevent the freight from falling off while driving the vehicle, and if the driver of the vehicle becomes unable to drive the vehicle due to a breakdown, etc. on the expressway, etc., the driver of the vehicle shall stop the right side of the vehicle and install the sign, but the driver of the vehicle of the Plaintiff caused the first accident and the second accident.
(4) In relation to the second accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 39,161,190 in total to the victims. In light of the above circumstances, etc., it is reasonable to view the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle as 60%. Thus, the Defendant is the insurer’s subrogation.