손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) from August 2, 2011, to Plaintiff A, KRW 1,000,000, respectively, and the Defendant from August 2, 201.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) D driving a taxi on August 2, 201 at around 02:20 on August 2, 201, along three-lanes in the direction of sexual investigative distance from the direction of the g-17rd Do road in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along the three-lanes of the 7-17rd Do road.
The central line with a yellow solid line, which led to the U.S. U.S. P. F. F. F. F. F. F. F., which had been driven by one lane adjacent to the defendant's vehicle, was shocked into the upper right part of the defendant's vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiff A suffered an injury, such as a escape from the left-hand opening of the instant accident, due to the said accident.
(2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 5, 7 (if there is a tentative number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(iii) evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleading
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
C. The Defendant asserts that: (a) the Plaintiff neglected to discover and avoid the Defendant’s vehicle in advance; (b) the Plaintiff’s failure to drive the vehicle on one-lane basis; (c) the driving of the vehicle on one-lane; (d) the operation of the vehicle in distress; and (e) the failure to wear safety equipment.
The defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff A knew of the illegal internship of the defendant's vehicle that he could avoid the defendant's vehicle, and the designated lane of Oralba is not a provision to prevent the collision with the vehicle that carries an illegal internship in the opposite direction like this case, so it cannot be considered as a ground for mitigation of responsibility for the defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the violation of the designated lane was caused by the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff A did not wear safety equipment such as the continuous driving, etc., and there is no evidence that the plaintiff A did not wear safety equipment such as the safety cap.