손해배상(자)
1. The defendant shall pay to the Appointor B KRW 8,278,464, the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointor C, respectively.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Fact 1) D is deemed to be the Defendant’s vehicle, around 07:30 on June 17, 2014, for the recompact transit bus (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).
(B) On the part of the designated party B, who was on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the vehicle and driving the traffic distance of the access road to slopings from the inside of the public tunnel to the private road along three-lanes from the north-gu crew in Changwon-si, the designated party B, who was on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, was in line with the signal, was in line with the signal, and was in line with the normal signal, was in line with the signal (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Plaintiff and the Appointed C are parents of the Appointed B.
3) The defendant is an insurer which has entered into an automobile insurance contract for the defendant's vehicle (based on recognition). The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for the defendant's vehicle (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 2 (
B. According to the facts found above, since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle driving in violation of the signal, the defendant, who is the insurer, is obliged to compensate the plaintiff and the designated person for the damage of this case.
C. 1) The Selected B’s failure to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident is not a dispute between the parties, and the above negligence was caused by the occurrence and expansion of the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 85% (the Appointed B’s negligence) in consideration of all the circumstances. 2) The Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the Selection B used the Defendant’s vehicle for attending school to and from the workplace, the Selection B is in a joint driver’s position, and thus, the Selection B’s negligence must be considered as having failed to perform its duty to urge safe operation
However, it cannot be deemed that the designated person B used the Defendant’s vehicle to attend school solely due to the circumstance that the designated person used the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.