beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.11.25 2018가단261722

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,313,170 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 25, 2017 to November 25, 2020 for the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to Crensto vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “fluoring vehicles”), and the Plaintiff was on the E-vehicle driven by D (hereinafter referred to as “victim”).

It is the victim of an accident described in the subsection.

B. F, around 07:00 on February 25, 2017, while driving a sea-lane 1 road in front of G on a day-to-day 07:00, while driving a sea-lane 1 road in front of G and driving in the direction of old funeral distance from the old funeral distance room, F shocked the front part of the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle driving in the direction of old funeral distance from the old funeral distance room.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff, who was on the back seat of the damaged vehicle, was injured by an injury, such as the alley 5 and 6 of the body (closed), chest 9, 10, 11, 12, and 12, due to the instant accident. The Plaintiff was hospitalized in the hospital from February 25, 2017 to August 31, 2017, which is the date of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Gap's 5, Gap's 11 through 13, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as an insurer of a sea-going vehicle unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant asserts that the limitation of liability due to the failure to wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident in this case, and that the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident in this case, which caused the expansion of damage, the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of the limitation of liability.

However, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not wear safety belts at the time of the instant accident only with only the descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 submitted by the Defendant.