손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: KRW 73,58,36 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 30, 2015 to November 9, 2018; and
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) C is DK5 automobiles around January 30, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”). DK5 automobiles around 02:40 on January 30, 2015
) A driver, while driving a vehicle and passing through the Abag-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) along two lanes,
2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as less than the Plaintiff’s impairment, left-hand felball, and felging aggregate.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 2, Gap’s evidence 5-1, 2, and Eul’s evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. 1) According to the above facts, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, has been injured by the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring any special circumstance, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle. 2) As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant has no duty of care to expect and drive the vehicle even when there is a pedestrian crossing the pedestrian signal in the heart, and that the driver of the defendant vehicle who was directly engaged in according to the vehicle driving signal has no negligence, and the defendant should be exempted from liability
The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle fulfilled his duty of care, such as the duty of front-time watching at the time of the instant accident.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the accident of this case was unable to avoid even if the defendant did not fulfill his duty of care, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so this part of the defendant's assertion is
C. A signal apparatus is installed at night in the Plaintiff’s limitation of liability.