손해배상(자)
1. The defendant's KRW 43,024,980 for each of the plaintiffs and 5% per annum from February 9, 2014 to February 11, 2015 for each of them.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) D is the basis for the responsibility of the E-city bus around 12:19 on February 9, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
A) When driving a vehicle and driving on the road in front of the “Gscisd” in front of the road in front of the “Gscisd” in front of the road in front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the road in front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the road in front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the road in front of the front of the front of the road, a pedestrian signal, etc. is installed in the front of the road in front of the front of the front of the road. As such, in spite of the occupational duty to reduce the speed and temporarily stop before
(A) On May 15, 2014, while receiving treatment by causing the deceased to obtain blood and sculpuling sculpulposis from her external wound, he/she caused death on the part of May 15, 2014 (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Plaintiffs are children of the Deceased, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
C. Whether the liability is limited or not, since the defendant's vehicle passed in front of the deceased in light of the fact that the location of the accident in this case is the place of the crosswalk and the collision part with the defendant's vehicle is the middle rear part of the bus's right side, even if the pedestrian signal was turned on, the deceased's negligence should have been exercised due care, such as examining whether the vehicle is approaching the crosswalk, and thus, the defendant's negligence should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the deceased. Thus, there is no special circumstance where the pedestrian who was a building of the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals was involved in the accident.