손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s respective KRW 162,347,768 against each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from February 12, 2016 to September 8, 2017, respectively.
1. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;
A. At around 23:25 on February 12, 2016, the network C was driving a vehicle with an industrial road located in the 37-2 in the border of the metropolitan cities at the time of permanent residence from the direction of the wind to the permanent direction, while driving the vehicle in the direction of the wind, it was left from the vehicle after the string of the said vehicle, moving the vehicle to the side, making a stop. However, the vehicle of D driving the said place to the same direction (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).
(B) without finding the deceased, the accident at the right side of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).
A) The Deceased died in the foregoing accident, and the Deceased died in an acute cardiopulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary Elimination. 2) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant Vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 10-13, 17-17, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above recognition of liability, since the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident.
[A] The defendant asserts that the defendant's vehicle should be exempted because the accident of this case occurred due to shock with the defendant's vehicle, which the deceased moved into a two-lane one lane from the two-lanes, but the defendant's vehicle should be exempted from liability. However, even if the evidence so shown is based on D's statement, which is the driver of the vehicle, it is difficult to believe it as it is. Even if it is based on D's statement (No. 10 No. 35), it is difficult to determine whether the defendant's vehicle is a one-lane or a two-lane because it is difficult for the defendant to determine whether the vehicle is a one-lane or a two-lane. Thus, the defendant's argument that the deceased's vehicle entered a one-lane is the cause of the accident of this case is rejected).
In this case, limitation of liability is limited.