손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner of CCAT980 H Pest (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for D D dump trucks (hereinafter “Defendant”).
E was carrying stone and soil on November 1, 2017 in the F Tunnels-si, Namyang-si, using the Plaintiff’s vehicle, for a dump truck.
E completed one time during the second dump truck assigned to H dump truck and followed up two times to work, while entering the workplace in order to undergo the second dump truck in the following order, the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the workplace and added even to the Plaintiff’s vehicle was considered to be a post-cummera.
Accordingly, while stopping back the back of E and intending to sprink up on the wall in the tunnel, the Defendant’s vehicle continued to stop without stopping and shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” As to the circumstances of the instant accident, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred while entering the workplace and stopping the workplace with the Defendant’s vehicle, and that E knew of this, without properly examining the future.
However, there was no special reason to further advance the direction of the Defendant vehicle which was on the top of another vehicle at the time when the vehicle was on the top of the vehicle, but there was a possibility that the Defendant vehicle continued to have been on the top of the vehicle due to the failure to directly witness the accident, due to the occurrence of the vehicle at one’s own time of work, neglect of post-control, etc., and I also stated that “the Defendant vehicle was on the top of the vehicle at the time, but did not directly witness the accident, changed the direction in which the Defendant vehicle attempted to drive on the top and going back to the direction where the Plaintiff vehicle was located,” even if following the statement in the evidence No. 1, even if following the statement in the evidence No. 1, the Defendant vehicle was stopped, but it was turned back by the Plaintiff vehicle.