보험금
1. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 73,852,845 to Plaintiff A, KRW 2,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts, from January 4, 2015.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
(a)The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, 7, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings:
1) C) On January 4, 2015, around 20:52, 2015, at the front of the entrance of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Operation Market, D1.2 tons of the vehicles loaded in the D1.2 tons (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”) at the front of the entrance of the 102-way Operation Market.
(ii) while driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle at a speed of about 65 km per hour on the five-lane road at a speed of 60 km speed in the direction of the border border distance from the direction of the operations station, he/she crosss the roadway to the right side from the direction of the running of the Defendant vehicle to the right side (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).
2) The deceased did not discover the U.S. and caused the death of the deceased due to cerebral cerebrovassis, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”) by shocking the deceased on the left side of the Defendant vehicle.
(2) C was summary indictment (Seoul District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 4932) due to the instant accident, and a summary order of KRW 10 million was issued on March 30, 2015, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time.
3) The Plaintiff is the only legal heir of the Deceased as his child, and the Plaintiff B is the de facto spouse who was living together with the Deceased from November 2009 to the date of the instant accident and engaged in de facto marital life. 4) The Defendant is the insurer who concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with C.
B. According to the facts of recognition 1, a person engaged in driving service at night at the time of the instant accident, even though he/she had a duty of care to safely drive the front-way traffic situation and prevent the accident in advance, C is in violation of the duty of care to drive the Defendant vehicle beyond the restricted speed and to stop the front-way.