(영문) 대전지방법원 2009.9.4.선고 2009가단15364 판결

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 22,962,50 won with 5% interest per annum from May 11, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A with respect to the 55 U.S. ○○○○○○○○○ Car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with B with respect to the 70 U.S. tourist bus No. 7000.

B. At around 18:30 on January 8, 2007, A, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s road in front of 200 U.S. Hongsan-gun, Hongsan-do, Hongsan-do, one-lane, was stopped on the opposite lane, and caused the instant accident that caused the Plaintiff’s death, which caused C crossing the said national road on the rear side of the Defendant vehicle to collision with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. At the same time, D was 200 residents living in the Defendant vehicle and went to Daecheon, and was coming to a distance at which the said national road and the degree 200 U.S. access roads are coming to the right side of the Defendant’s national road, and C was driven by the Defendant vehicle to enter the road to the extent of 200 U.S. road along with other residents, and was involved in the accident as above.

C. According to the above insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid C’s heir KRW 45,925,00 as damages.

【Unsatisfy-based dispute on the ground of recognition】Unsatisfy-based dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6 through 9, Gap evidence 13-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-3 through 16, Eul evidence 1-3 through 16, witness D’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The instant accident is an accident caused by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and as C maintains the status of a passenger, the Defendant is liable for the operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Furthermore, D, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to pay KRW 22,962,00,00, equivalent to 50,000, the Defendant’s liability ratio of the Plaintiff’s bereaved family, out of the amount of compensation for the instant accident, is 2,962,00,00 won, which is the Defendant’s liability ratio of the Defendant’s liability, as the Plaintiff paid to C’s bereaved family.

B. Determination

(1) First, we examine whether the instant accident constitutes an accident involving the death of a passenger due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant is responsible for the operation of the vehicle under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. The term “operation under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act” refers to the use of various devices installed according to the purpose of the respective devices depending on the use of the vehicle, and even if the vehicle is not in the state of driving, it includes the use of various auxiliary devices such as opening and closing the door at the front and rear stage of the vehicle driving, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da20340, 20357, Jul. 9, 2004). In addition, the term “passenger” under the proviso of Article 3 subparag. 2 of the same Act refers to only a person inside the vehicle, and thus, can maintain the status of a person who does not go beyond the scope of direct danger of the vehicle in operation.

Based on these legal principles, as recognized earlier, D stops the Defendant vehicle at the right edge of the national highway in order to finally load the passengers living at the level 2 per cent, and C was faced with the instant accident while returning to and from the Defendant vehicle. In light of the situation of stopping and stopping of the Defendant vehicle, and the circumstances leading up to C’s getting out of the vehicle, it is reasonable to deem C’s operation of the Defendant vehicle was terminated in relation to C even if C was caused by the instant accident, and C was out of the direct risk scope due to the operation of the Defendant vehicle, and C was no longer in the status of passengers.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant bears the responsibility for the operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is without merit.

(2) 다음으로, 이 사건 사고 발생에 있어서 피고 차량의 운전자인 D에게 과실이 있는지에 관하여 보건대, 먼저 이 사건 사고 장소가 정차금지구역에 해당함을 인정할 만한 아무런 자료가 없다. 또한, 도로교통법 제34조, 도로교통법 시행령 제11조는 자동차가 도로에서 정차를 하고자 하는 때에는 차도의 우측 가장자리에 정차하여야 하고 그 경우 다른 교통에 방해가 되지 않도록 하여야 한다고 규정하고 있고, 도로교통법 제37조, 도로교통법 시행령 제19조는 자동차가 도로에 정차 또는 주차하는 경우에는 자동차안전기준에서 정하는 미등 및 차폭등을 켜야 한다고 규정하고 있는데, 증인 D의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 바와 같이 이 사건 사고 당시 D이 안개등을 켠 채 국도 우측 가장자리에 피고 차량을 정차한 점에 비추어, D이 정차방법이나 정차 시 그 등화에 관한 관련 규정을 위반하였다고 볼 수 없고, 갑 제3, 4호증의 각 기재만으로는 피고 차량의 정차로 인하여 다른 교통에 방해가 초래되었다고 단정하기 어렵다. 나아가 D의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, D은 이 사건 사고 당시 직접 피고 차량에서 하차하여 피고 차량 앞쪽에서 마주 오는 차량이 있는지 여부를 확인한 후 승객들로 하여금 도로를 횡단하도록 한 사실, 그런데 C이 이를 무시하고 피고 차량 뒤쪽에서 도로를 횡단하다가 이 사건 사고를 당한 사실을 알 수 있는데, 이러한 점에 비추어 볼 때 D이 하차하는 승객들의 보호를 게을리하였다고 볼 수도 없다. 결국, 이와 같은 모든 사정들을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 사고와 관련하여 D에게 어떠한 과실이 있다고 볼 수 없고, 이와 달리 D에게 과실이 있음을 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the accident of this case occurred due to D's negligence is not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.