손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor: KRW 526,593,296 as well as 5% per annum from August 29, 2014 to June 28, 2016.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 02:20 on August 29, 2014, B: (a) Category C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)
2) The Plaintiff, while driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle into the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving his/her vehicle into the front part of the Plaintiff’s bridge, which opened the crosswalk from the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the left side, along the two-lanes of the two-lane road in front of the cafeteria in Daegu Suwon-gu D, and accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the mouth of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s successor succeeded to the status of the Defendant’s insurer on May 27, 2012.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11 through 18 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings]
B. The Defendant vehicle has been negligent in neglecting the duty of care to drive safely by fulfilling the duty of front-time watch, and even as the Plaintiff intended to build a crosswalk on which no signal, etc. is installed at night, he/she neglected his/her duty to safely cross the crosswalk by examining the flow of the vehicle in a proper manner, and both the negligence of the Defendant vehicle and the negligence of the Plaintiff contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant accident.
In light of all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the instant accident, the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident, etc., Plaintiff 10% of the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant vehicle: it is reasonable to view that
C. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserts that the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor did not bear liability for damages against the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor on the ground that the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor offered the Defendant’s vehicle for commercial transport, and the instant accident occurred.
The term "insured car" in the insurance contract for the defendant vehicle, which is a car, is a car.