손해배상(기)
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 40,567,579 as well as to the plaintiff on August 2016.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the modification as follows, since the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of Article 1(1) (as stated in the second to third to fourth to fourth to the first instance judgment). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of
The term "ownership" in two pages of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted.
Two pages of the decision of the first instance court, "19-51, Ma-ro, 119-61, Ma-ro, Ma-ro, Ma-ro, 119-61."
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above recognition of liability, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case occurred due to the failure to perform the duty of care to safely drive the road by taking into account whether a pedestrian cross-road is crossing the road in the case of a driver driving of the defendant cargo, and as such, the defendant is an insurer of the defendant cargo of this case, who is the deceased and his mother, due to the accident of this case.
B. The limitation of liability: (a) the following circumstances recognized by the evidence as mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows; and (b) C in the relevant criminal investigation agency stated, “A was unable to use ney in the vicinity of the front bed of the vehicle because it mainly takes galcons and signals, etc. before the instant accident,” and C was obliged to pay more attention to the Defendant Cargo when passing the crosswalk, taking into account the fact that the length of the vehicle exceeds ordinary automobiles, the width is wide, and the range of the blind zone not visible from the view of the driver’s seat due to high body is broad; (b) the instant accident occurred at least 13:30, and the weather was clear at the time, and there was no obstacle to interfere with the view as the intersection at the one-lane crossing of the accident site. Therefore, C was an intersection.