beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant KS insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant insurance company”) concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Defendant B regarding Defendant C Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “AV”).
B. At around 19:00 on September 11, 2015, Defendant B: (a) left a vehicle in front of the 19:00 Gangseo-si 1 Hyundai Chodong; (b) however, there was an accident in which the ebroke of the vehicle in the sea was opened so that the ebroke can cut down by the Plaintiff, thereby shocking the left-hand side of the towing vehicle parked by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “victim”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4 (Evidence with Serial No. 4) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, since Defendant B, as the driver of a sea-going vehicle, was a parking place at the time of parking, the accident occurred by shocking the damaged vehicle due to negligence that did not have safety devices even though it had safety devices, so the Defendant Insurance Company and Defendant B, the insurer of the sea-going vehicle, are liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the accident in this case.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted prior to the limitation of liability, the location of the instant accident is without parking as a two-lane road, and the area of the accident is 200 meters away from the parking place, and the Plaintiff parked the damaged vehicle at the parking prohibition place. The Defendant’s liability for damages is limited to 80% in consideration of the Plaintiff’s negligence, etc.
C. 1) Scope of positive damage A) Summary of the parties’ assertion (1) The original saw Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the original saw”) entrusted by the Plaintiff to repair the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident was repaired by means of exchanging the loading of the damaged vehicle under an agreement with the Defendant insurance company.
In addition, this case.