손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from May 22, 2018 to February 19, 2020 and February 20, 2020 to the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 20, 202>
1. Basic facts
A. C, while driving the E.M. car volume of the E.M. (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) owned by D, at around 20:30, 20:30, C caused an accident in which the Plaintiff’s driver, who was driving on the front side of the G in front of the G in F of the G, left the left at night from the right side of the Young Village to the H apartment. At night, there was an intersection at the front side, and thus, the driver of the vehicle was negligent in performing his duty of care to prevent the accident by reducing speed and driving signals well, and making it left the left as they were, due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of care to prevent the accident, while driving the vehicle at night, and driving the vehicle at the right side of the I.M. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).
B. The Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as the closure of a stoke stokes, accompanied by a stokes that require approximately 10 weeks of treatment due to the instant accident, and suffered from injury to the left stokes, etc. at the J Hospital on May 23, 2018; and
6.7. The same hospital has received studios using metal plates.
C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Class A, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Evidence Nos. 8-1 through 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
B. In regard to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident, at the time of the instant accident, was negligent in failing to comply with the criteria for the traffic vehicles along the lanes, violation of the duty of prior watching, speed, and bridge protection zone, and thus, the negligence must be offset.” As such, the Defendant’s partial entries and images of the health belt, Eul’s evidence 2-3, Eul’s evidence 2-1, and Eul’s evidence 2-2