2010 Single 18785 Reimbursements

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

1. A;

2. B

October 23, 2013

December 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 28,470,260 won with 5% interest per annum from November 20, 2009 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

(a) Occurrence of an accident;

○ Defendant A worked as an employee at the Deputy Director of CA of CA (hereinafter referred to as the “Deputy Director of CA”) operated by Defendant B, who is his husband.

On October 22, 2009, Defendant A finished the car of E Mutotoo (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”) owned by D on October 12, 2009, and then changed the selection server from the parking (P) to the later (R) in order to allow Defendant A, who was parked in front of the fence at the entrance of the Jeju Deputy Director, of the instant case, to move his vehicle.

○○ The Defendant’s vehicle got a cargo vehicle parked after 20 meters from the wall that was parked in the first place while stopping without stop, and immediately passed through the wall in front of the place where the immediately preceding Defendant’s vehicle was parked, and then stopped three times again (such as this, the outline of the accident, which repeated three backs and two backs, is as shown in the attached Form, and this accident is referred to as “the instant accident”). The Defendant’s vehicle destroyed the Gystal or another car and H-owned I (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) owned by the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked in the Third Division of the instant case before and during the following period.

B. Payment of insurance money by the Plaintiff

○ The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with H and the Plaintiff by setting the insurance period from June 23, 2009 to June 23, 2010 as collateral items, and self-vehicle damage as collateral items.

On November 1, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 28,470,260 on the repair cost of the Plaintiff and the vehicle in accordance with the automobile comprehensive insurance terms and conditions, and subsequently, H, the insured under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, subrogatedly acquired the right to claim damages against the Defendants by subrogation.

(c) Principle of motor vehicle operation and characteristics of the defendant vehicle;

In order to drive an automobile, an appropriate mixed air and fuel should be supplied to the engine's combustion room and electric flames should be ignited. The air is supplied through an open speed control device (IC and Idle Speed Control Zone) level gauge and a driver's license plate (Throt Valve) to regulate engine transmission by supplying air to the engine at the early stage of operation or during the public conference.

○ The automatic transmission is a device that plays a role in delivering the engine’s power to the wheels of the vehicle, and a variety of clurbs in the variable and a changeer control device installed in the vehicle (TCU, Trrrrrrmsson’s control device) are automatically binding the engine’s power by flow pressure according to its driving speed and part.

○ The Defendant’s vehicle was manufactured in around 1995 by the Asia Automobile Co., Ltd., and the total mileage up to the time of the instant accident exceeded 200,000 km.

○ The string valve of Defendant vehicle applied to vehicles recently produced, namely, an electronic engine control device (ECU, Engine) and its opening and closing are not automatically controlled, but is opened and closed only by cable and string connected to the stro-cird, and the above cable and heading operate a mechanical system that can be adjusted according to the pressure applied by speed.

○ The Defendant’s vehicle was equipped with an automatic transmission device, but no selective transmission device was installed, which was a device that makes it impossible for the driver to move from parking (P) to another location if he/she does not go through the balc pedal pedal. The driver’s choiceer of the Defendant’s vehicle is in the order of P (parking), R (H), N (H), D (J), D (H), 2 (S (H), and L (H) in the order above. At the bottom of the balc electiver, it is installed with an automatic transmission device as shown in the attached Form, and thus, it should be divided into R, N, D, or converting from R, 2, D, or DNA to either R or P, or converting from D to R to a P to either 2 or L, or in order to convert from R to a rabon to a rabal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred at least by Defendant A’s negligence, on the grounds that Defendant A and Defendant B, who is a tort, have a duty to claim reimbursement for damages incurred by the instant accident, to the Plaintiff who compensateed for the damages caused by the instant accident, on the grounds that the instant accident occurred in the course of the instant accident, i.e., the trace of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle, and the possibility of being damaged due to the collision during the instant accident.

2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant accident was not caused by Defendant A’s negligence, but caused by the defect of Defendant A, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

B. Determination

1) In light of the former operating principle of fin-car and the characteristics of the Defendant vehicle, it is difficult to avoid the possibility of the driver’s negligence in the same type of accident as the instant accident. In full view of the respective descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 7 through 12, it is recognized that the Defendant vehicle’s fin-car on the right side of the car can be classified into the speed fin-car, and the fact that the Defendant vehicle was manufactured in around 1995, and was driven more than 20,000 km at the time of the instant accident.

2) On the other hand, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements and images of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the facts recognized in paragraph (1) and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff are involved in the occurrence of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the negligence in driving of the Defendant A is without merit.

○ At the time of the instant accident, Defendant A’s driving experience was about 10 years, and the instant accident occurred at the time of 1 year and 10 months after he/she had worked for the Deputy Director at the time of the instant accident. At the time of the instant accident, Defendant A’s mental and physical health conditions seems to have improved.

○ The third Deputy Director of the instant case does not seem to have any special circumstance that Defendant A neglected the third Deputy Director’s duties at the place operated by Defendant B, the husband of the instant case.

○ 이 사건 사고는 피고 차량이 5회에 걸쳐 차례로 후진, 전진, 후진, 전진, 후진 및 정지를 계속하는 동안 속도 변화를 거의 보이지 않은 채 담장과 다른 차량들과 충돌한 후 거의 멈추지 않고 벽에 부딪친 고무공처럼 곧바로 반대방향으로 튕겨져 나오는 양상을 띠고 있다.

○○ The instant accident began at the start of the start immediately after Defendant A’s commencement of the start-up, and there seems to be low possibility for Defendant A A to take a speed back from the beginning, and in light of the form of the instant accident, it is difficult to deem Defendant A to have followed a speed-on to maintain a certain speed during the front and the follow-up operation of the instant accident, and immediately after the instant accident, Defendant A finished the indoor car car, and moved the vehicle to the wall at the entrance of the instant parking lot, and there is sufficient possibility that the instant accident occurred in the process.

In full view of the distance of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, it appears that the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was not high, and that the control of the Defendant’s vehicle was not impossible at the time of the instant accident.

○ 이 사건 사고를 목격한 J이 일관된 태도로 피고 차량의 브레이크 등이 점등 되어 있었으나 피고 차량이 멈추지 않았다고 진술하는 점, 피고 A 역시 브레이크 페달을 밟았다고 일관되게 진술하는 점, 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 사고 당시 피고 차량의 속도는 높지 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 세차장 바닥에서 확인된 타이어 자국은 피고 차량이 전진과 후진을 하면서 담장 등과 충돌한 지점의 구동바퀴인 뒷바퀴 부분에서 끝부분이 U자형으로 형성되었고, 피고 차량은 충돌 후에도 거의 멈추지 않고 곧바로 반대방향으로 튕겨져 나갔는바, 위 타이어자국은 차량이 여전히 구동되고 있는 상태에서 형성된 휠스핀 자국으로 보이는 점 등의 사정들을 종합하여 보면, 피고 A가 이 사건 사고 당시 브레이크 페달을 밟았으나 제동장치가 제대로 작동하지 않았던 것으로 보인다.

○ In light of the following: (a) Defendant A did not stop the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked on the front side at the time when the instant accident occurred; (b) Defendant A was faced with head in front of the driver’s seat at the time of the instant accident; and (c) Defendant A was faced with knee and knee at the time of the instant accident; and (d) the impact delivered to Defendant A at the time of the instant accident appears to have been reasonable; (b) it is difficult to deem that Defendant A continued to have been able to manipulate the knee choiceer from the front to the rear or from the rear to the rear by continuously displaying a considerable positive force while undergoing the instant accident at the time of the instant accident, and there is a conflict with the wall and other vehicles at the time of the instant accident.

At the entrance of the case, the traffic of the vehicle was frequent, and the vehicle of the defendant was parked in the movement route of the vehicle of the defendant. The vehicle of the defendant was parked in other vehicles owned by the third party. Since the defendant Eul led the defendant Eul to stop the vehicle, the vehicle of the defendant Eul attempted to operate hand in order to prevent a large amount of accident and damage, but the vehicle of the defendant was moved to move to the opposite or perfect string line over the past while repeated. This is deemed to be due to the change of direction rather than the operation of the steering gear, and the defendant A stated that the vehicle of the defendant A did not properly handle the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is highly doubtful as to whether the normal operation of the steering gear of the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident of this case.

In the K accident investigation conducted immediately after the accident of this case, there was no defect in the motor vehicle of the defendant.

○ An automobile-related expert who examined the instant accident video refers to the possibility of defects of the Defendant’s vehicle.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-gu

1) From the beginning of 12:10:10:10 to the beginning of the vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle continued to stop 5:12:10 to 42:10, and continued to stop 12:10 to 42:0, and the distance that was moved while continuing to start 5:00 to 10:00. The speed of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident seems to have been 30km prior to and after the instant accident.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.