beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be dismissed.
2...
Reasons
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of non-life insurance business, and is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A and B vehicles owned by it (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle"), and the defendant is a person who operates a bus No. 3613 (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant bus").
Around 14:32 on September 20, 201, D, a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle driver”) driven the street room in front of the Seocheon-dong Incheon East-gu Daejeon, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do, with three-lanes from the 4th seat of Seo-gu, Daejeon-do. As indicated in the attached status survey, as the Defendant bus prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle occupies three and four-lanes and stops, it changed its course to four-lanes. While driving a four-lane, D, the left side side of the bus E, which was cut off on the fourth lane to board the Defendant bus in front of the bus platform, was shocked by the front end of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as "the instant traffic accident". The Plaintiff's vehicle, after shocking E, proceeded about about 119 meters, was shocked and stopped.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 32,746,877, and KRW 15,00,00 for damages, and paid KRW 968,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 8,900,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
[The ground for recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, the images and entries of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion by the plaintiff, despite the duty of care to train the passengers after stopping the bus at the bus stops at the bus stops located on the four-lanes, and therefore, the traffic accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the plaintiff's driver and the driver of the defendant bus. The negligence of the driver of the defendant bus in this case should be recognized at least 30%, and the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the indemnity to the plaintiff who subrogated the insured as the owner of the defendant bus.
The defendant's argument bus driver is another passenger.