beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant MG Loss Insurance Co., Ltd.: KRW 81,974,730 and its related thereto from February 9, 2010 to December 2014.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) B is the basis for liability for damages. B around 15:00 on February 9, 2010, C Round 6 B is the Defendant-owned vehicle (hereinafter “1st Defendant vehicle”).
(B) Although the signal was changed to a vehicle stop signal from the Gando-dong, in the vicinity of the kidne road located in the Gyeonggi-si-si, Gwangju-do-si, and the signal was changed to the vehicle stop signal, in violation of the signal, the part on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s Rastststststing cargo vehicle operating the intersection in accordance with the new code from the old kidg-do-dong-dong-dong-si to the Jando-dong-si (hereinafter “the primary accident”) and caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as brain dust, erost, bones, bones, bones, dye, dye, dye, dye, dye, dye, etc., to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the first accident”).
(2) On July 17, 2010, E around 14:44, 2010, driving a FSM5 vehicle (hereinafter “2 Defendant vehicle”) on the back side of the Seoul Administrative Court building Samsung F&V, located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, at the right side of the Plaintiff’s G vehicle (hereinafter “2 Defendant vehicle”) and moving back to the left side, and was stopped, the part of the Defendant’s G vehicle’s G vehicle’s seat in front of the driver’s seat while stopping was shocked to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as the Y, etc.
The second accident is referred to as ‘the second accident'.
3) Defendant MG damage insurance is an insurer that has concluded each automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to Defendant 1 and Defendant Samsung F&M is an insurer that has concluded each automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to Defendant 2.
B. According to the fact of recognition as above, Defendant MG damage insurance is liable for damages caused by the primary accident, and Defendant Samsung Fire is liable for the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the secondary accident.
C. Whether the liability for damages was limited or not, Defendant MG damage insurance for the first accident was not worn by the Plaintiff at the time of the first accident, and this was caused by the expansion of damages.