beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.03.20 2017가단51806

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: 14,357,143 won, Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F respectively; and 4,653,062 won, and Plaintiff G.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

J around 19:08 on October 29, 2016, the KJ driven a KMW car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and was driven by a two-lane road along the two-lane road adjacent to the MU oil station located in the former North Chang-gun L, and did not observe the speed limit (80 km per hour) at the location, while driving the steering direction and operation system accurately and safely by operating the steering direction and operation system well at the front side and the right side of the said vehicle in breach of its duty of care to prevent accidents, thereby driving the steering direction and operation safely at approximately 154 km per hour in violation of its duty of care to prevent accidents, while driving the instant vehicle on the right side, and driving the instant vehicle on the front side of the driver’s seat, the front glass part, etc.

J by such occupational negligence as above, caused the death of N(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) on the job due to a dystrophal injury, etc. accompanied by two in-house transfusions, and caused the death of P, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, and F are children of the Deceased.

Plaintiff

G is the husband of the deceased P, a child of the deceased, and the plaintiff H and I are their children.

The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 14, and Eul's evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including a serial number), and the fact that the defendant is liable for damages arising from the overall purport of the pleading, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the deceased and his bereaved family members due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the vehicle of this case.

The deceased, as the restricted deceased, was negligent in crossing without permission on the road where the crosswalk is not installed at night at which the view is restricted, and such negligence also resulted in considerable cause for the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages. This is considered, however, the deceased’s age, the time and location of the instant accident, the details and circumstances of the accident at the time of the accident.