beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,704,896 as well as 5% per annum from August 2, 2018 to April 8, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company which has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C and D (hereinafter “instant automobile”), and the Defendant is the driver of the instant automobile and the instant Trackter (hereinafter “instant Track”) in which the instant automobile and the traffic accident have occurred, as seen below.
B. On June 2, 2017, around 15:30 on June 2, 2017, C caused a traffic accident that conflicts with the instant Track, which was stopped on the right side of the road while driving the instant vehicle on a two-lane adjacent to the detailed drawing of the Dannam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant road”), and stopped on the right side of the road (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 188,524,480 to C in accordance with the insurance contract with C by August 1, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) while proceeding on the road in this case where the road in this case is at the right direction, the Defendant discovered and stopped the instant Track which was illegally parked, and the distance is too short, and thus, the instant Trackter conflicts with the future of the instant Track. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant’s fault in relation to the instant traffic accident falls under 30%. Accordingly, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to indemnity against the Defendant by paying insurance money, KRW 557,344, which is equivalent to 30% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. 2) Although the Defendant parked and parked the instant Track on the road in this case, the traffic accident in this case occurred only due to the Defendant’s negligence, which speed exceeds 90 km.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.
B. Determination of each of the above evidence is based on the evidence No. 1.