손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: KRW 130,027,96 to Plaintiff A, KRW 5,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and KRW 2,50,000 to Plaintiff C and Plaintiff D, respectively.
On April 16, 2012, E, when driving a F vehicle on April 16, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving a vehicle in the vicinity of the floating water convalescent hospital located in Ulsan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), in such a case, a person engaged in driving a vehicle has neglected his duty of care to report the traffic situation well and to prevent the accident in advance by driving the bicycle safely, while neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident. Accordingly, the part of the bicycle’s after-school-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as a serious brain ties, stroke, stroke, and tension, etc., of the Defendant vehicle.
Plaintiff
B is the spouse of the plaintiff A, and the plaintiff C and D are the children of the plaintiff, and the defendant is the insurer who has concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.
【In light of the fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the fact of recognition as a ground for the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred on the two-lane road along which the center line is located, and that the plaintiff A's "the bicycle rider shall pass along the right side of the road at a place where no bicycle lane is installed" erred by disregarding the provisions of Article 13-2 (2) of the Road Traffic Act and by making it possible to proceed along one-lane.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that Plaintiff A operated a bicycle in accordance with the first lane only with the descriptions of the certificate Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise, so the above Plaintiff is at fault.