손해배상(자)
1. The part demanding the payment of 24,730 won among the plaintiff's lawsuits shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant 8.8.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Fact 1) On August 23, 2015, the Plaintiff is a truck on three-lanes in the three-lanes of the 300-lane of the 12:30 pak-dong, Seodaemun-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-gu”).
(C)A vehicle already stopped on the side due to a mistake that has driven on the side while driving the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).
2) The instant accident was brought back after shocking (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury to the long-term damage of images and dives that are not on both sides.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. (B) According to the above findings of recognition 1), the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, was injured by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, barring any special circumstance, is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’
2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total negligence, the Defendant’s liability for damages ought to be denied. If, barring any special circumstance, the situation where the collision accident had not occurred if a parked vehicle was parked on the side, barring any special circumstance, there exists a proximate causal relation between illegal parking on the side and the collision accident on the side (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da33808, Mar. 11, 1997). C illegally stops on the side, even though there are no inevitable circumstances, such as breakdown, and it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle.
According to the above legal principles and facts of recognition, the causal relationship between the accident of this case and the illegal stopping of the defendant's vehicle is recognized, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
C. The limitation of liability is limited, however, that the Plaintiff had been able to drive a vehicle while driving the vehicle prior to the instant accident while driving the vehicle, and had shocked the Defendant vehicle, and such mistake has contributed significantly to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage.