손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) on November 1, 2010, to Plaintiff A, KRW 1,000,000, and each of the said amounts, respectively, to Plaintiff B and C.
D, on November 1, 2010, the basis for liability for damages, driving L-ti Motor Vehicle in front of the Fridge in Daegu-gun E, the Fridge, the 16:30 on November 1, 2010, is driving a L-ti Motor Vehicle and driving a two-lane one way from the direction of the U.S. to the New East Asia-Pacific.
In order to enter the access road to Sameung Apartment apartment connected to the opposite road, the right turn to the left was diversified by overcoming the central line, and making a turn to the opposite apartment.
At the beginning of the above access road, there was a crosswalk without signal lights around the above access road, and the plaintiff A was walking on the right side of the above vehicle to the right side of the crosswalk in accordance with the crosswalk. However, the plaintiff A was found late to find the plaintiff A, and the front part of the above vehicle shocked the plaintiff A's right side shoulder and the right side bridge. As a result, the plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as cindum, dinite, dinite, hinal dinite, etc.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff A serves as a senior high school teacher, and the Plaintiff B and C are the parents of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the said vehicle.
According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
In the event that a limited harmful act of liability and the factors on the part of the victim occur or expands the damage, even if the factors on the part of the victim are irrelevant to the causes on the part of the victim, such as the risk of physical novels or diseases, it is deemed that requiring the perpetrator to compensate for the whole damage in light of the form, degree, etc. of the disease is contrary to the principle of fairness, the court may consider the factors on the part of the victim who has contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage by applying the legal principle of comparative negligence in determining the amount of compensation for damage, and by analogying
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37251, Apr. 24, 2014). The Plaintiff A, as seen below, is the escape card of a conical signboard, the conical base, and the base salt.