손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) to Plaintiff A, KRW 87,35,860, KRW 500,000, and each of the said amounts to Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively; and (b) on January 27, 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 25, 2015, E driving a F E-Sp Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) around 23:06, while driving along the two-lane road in front of H in G in the original city along one lane in the direction of a multi-gambling distance from the driving distance in the original city, the Plaintiff, who crossed a crosswalk without signal lights, was shocked with the front part of the said vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the closure of the upper half of the upper half of the left-hand edge where treatment is required for approximately 13 weeks.
B. Meanwhile, the Defendant was an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive contract with respect to F.S. passenger cars (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant paid KRW 42,362,530 in total to the Plaintiff as medical expenses of the instant traffic accident.
C. Plaintiff D’s father, Plaintiff B, and C are Plaintiff A’s children.
(Ground for recognition: facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
Each entry, the whole purport of the pleading (including the insurance payment certificate of July 8, 2016) shall comply with
2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;
A. According to the above facts, in operating a road with a crosswalk without signal lights at night, E is deemed to have caused the instant traffic accident in violation of the duty of care to reduce speed and safely drive the road by checking the right and the right. Thus, as the insurer of the instant vehicle, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs for all damages due to the instant traffic accident, unless there are special circumstances.
B. However, the defendant's liability is limited to 90% since the plaintiff A could have neglected to verify whether the vehicle was coming from the crosswalk without signal lights at night, while the plaintiff A was frighter at night.
3. Except as otherwise stated below, the scope of the liability for damages shall be limited.