beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.07.22 2013가단511515

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 43,016,157 to Plaintiff A, KRW 42,416,157 to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts from January 18, 2012.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 18, 2012, at around 11:40, Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant accident”) the section of the 2nd bridge of the Incheon Highway to the first line for driving the Fratoon tower from the Incheon Airport as the airside of the Incheon Airport. G was not viewed as a vehicle for Hpoter private car (hereinafter “instant wing vehicle”) which was stopped near the upper side of the central separation zone in order to install a signboard that is a road facility, and as a result, G parked the back side of the instant harming vehicle into the upper right side of the vehicle for his own possession (hereinafter “instant accident”), and as a private person, such as cardiopulmonary stop, died.

B. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with G for the instant sea vehicles, and the Plaintiff’s father and the Plaintiff’s mother are the inheritors of each E, and the Plaintiff’s C and D are the siblings of each E.

C. At the time the instant sea-going vehicle stopped on the side, it was not installed with a container for the safety of vehicles in operation behind the vehicle at the time, and the signal number operated by the receiver was not also posted.

The width of the road on the side of the central separation zone, where the vehicle stops, is not more than 1.5m, and the width of the vehicle is not more than 1.74m.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 15, 16, 17, 20, Eul evidence No. 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is difficult to view that G used the necessary safety measures while carrying out the work of installing traffic signs (the same shall apply to the case where the time of the accident is immediately after the arrival of the construction vehicle). In light of the fact that the instant sea-going vehicle is likely to have been stopped due to the collision of the first line where E was proceeding, the Defendant, the insurer of G, is the insurance company, and the Plaintiffs.