손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition 1) around 02:19 on January 25, 2015, the Defendant driven a 599C ZX600-R and driven a ZX600-R and driven a three-lane of the front side of the D PP and the front side of the D PP in Busan south-gu C along one-lanes from the breadth of the border basin to the breadth of the border basin, the speed of about 133 km at a speed exceeding 80 km per hour while driving the breadth of the road at the speed of 133 km at the speed of the speed of restriction. On the other hand, the Defendant shocked the crosswalk at the front side of the Defendant’s movement (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) On January 25, 2015, E sent back to a H Hospital located in Suwon-gu, Busan, but died due to the high level of injury caused by the above accident, around 02:50 on January 25, 2015, and the Defendant suffered injury, such as damage to the left side of the instant accident, due to the instant accident.
3) The Plaintiff is the deceased E (hereinafter “the deceased”).
A) The deceased’s father is the deceased’s father and the deceased’s father is the deceased’s father’s father. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap’s evidence 2-4, Gap’s evidence 5-1, 2, and Eul’s evidence 4-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. In addition to the following circumstances, which can be seen by the evidence as seen earlier, the occurrence of the liability for damages, namely, at night at the time of the accident, the Defendant was at the time of the accident, and the Defendant, even if he had driven a road on which the crosswalk was installed at the front of the road, and operated the otobbb above the restricted speed, etc., the Defendant is deemed to have caused the said accident in violation of the duty of care as a driver of the obbbbb, who should have done the front of the accident at the time of the accident, even though he had a duty of care as a driver of the vehicle, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Deceased due to
(c) limitation of liability, unless otherwise.