손해배상(자)
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 36,51,839, and KRW 2,00,000, and KRW 1,000,000 and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff B.
1. On June 19, 2013, Nonparty E driving a Fsi (hereinafter “instant taxi”) around 04:30, and driving a two-lane in the vicinity of the 197km Busan-do Busan-do Busan-do Highway, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “instant taxi”), Nonparty E, while changing the vehicle to one lane in the vicinity of the 197km-dong Busan-do Busan-do Busan-do-dong-do, the said taxi was dissated, and the said taxi was dissat down, and the said taxi conflicts with the central separation zone over the left-hand side of the said taxi, and the said vehicle conflicts with the said central separation zone (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
Plaintiff
A was on board the chief of the instant taxi at the time of the instant traffic accident, and due to the instant traffic accident, A suffered injury, such as the open frame of reproduction inside the right leg, due to the instant traffic accident.
The defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Fsi, and the plaintiff B is the spouse, the plaintiff C, and the plaintiff A's children.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. 1) According to the factual basis prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, E, the driver of the instant taxi, has been negligent in violating the duty of care to safely change the car line on the new wall hours. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act as a mutual aid business entity of the instant taxi. 2) The fact that the Plaintiff A did not wear the safety belt at the time of the instant accident does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by the entry in the evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (which is not clearly disputed by the Plaintiff A), and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff A provided considerable cause for the occurrence and expansion of the damages caused by the instant accident.