beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.22 2015나105146

손해배상(자)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and above.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 13:10 on January 20, 2014, D, driving the E rocketing car owned by her wife (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and neglecting the duty of exponing the national highway No. 30 on the part of the Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, which was located in the half month of Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, and caused an accident of falling back to the left by a drainage, falling over the center line and falling back to the left by a water channel, which is approximately 3 meters below the center line, and died on the day of the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, the Plaintiff B, and C are the children of the deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle driven by D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-4, 5, and 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs' damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of this case.

나. 책임의 제한 앞서 본 증거, 제1심법원의 무진장소방서장에 대한 사실조회 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 사고 당시 출동한 무진장소방서 소속 소방사들이 작성한 구급활동일지에 망인은 이 사건 차량에서 튕겨져 나가 있었던 것으로 기재되어 있는 사실이 인정되는바, 이에 더하여 운전자 D이나 동승자 K, L는 망인과 달리 이 사건 사고로 인하여 부상을 입은 데 그친 점 등에 비추어 망인은 이 사건 사고 당시 안전벨트를 착용하지 않았던 것으로 보이고, 이와 같은 망인의 과실은 손해의 발생 및 확대에 상당 부분 기여하였다고 보인다.

In addition, the above evidence is examined.