손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
A. Nonparty B: (a) on December 28, 2012, 19:40 on the 19:40 on the 28th day of Gui-si Pyeong-si.
The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 28, 2012, Nonparty B, while driving a C-Motor vehicle, entered the roads of Daejeon, located on the right side in the air route of the Simpyeong-dong, Simyeong-si, Simyeong-si.
B. B, while intending to change the direction from the above awning road to the safety zone, and enter the road in Seoul direction, the part front of the D 1 ton truck entering the said road (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) was shocked with the front part of the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle in front of the left side.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.
The defendant suffered injuries, such as knee knee knee knee knee knee knee kne, etc.
The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 5 through 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the allegation of the non-prosecution agreement are the same as the stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination on the principal lawsuit and the cause of counterclaim
A. According to the above facts based on the occurrence of liability for damages and the payment of insurance proceeds, it is reasonable to view that B caused the accident of this case by failing to look at the Defendant’s vehicle to enter the road in Seoul direction after passing through the safety zone in which traffic is prohibited on the earthary ICT regrown road.
Therefore, B is obligated to compensate for damages sustained by the Defendant due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is obligated to pay the Defendant the insurance amount equivalent to the above damages.
(2) Limit of liability, however, according to the above evidence, the defendant has a duty of care to prevent accidents by examining the front and rear left points when entering the road in the Seoul metropolitan direction.