손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 338,00,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 9,801,342 for Plaintiff B; and (c) from September 22, 2018 to September 2019 for each of the said money.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) D is a vehicle E around 19:22 September 22, 2018 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) A person driving a vehicle and driving it along a road of 166-1 (166-1), and stopped in order to make a right-hand turn to the right-hand side of the raw ginseng distance. At that time, F began to build up the road of such west-North Korean road to move from the front-hand side of the stop location of the Defendant vehicle to the left-hand side, and D began to move to the right-hand side without being aware of F and went to the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).
(2) F (hereinafter “the deceased”) died due to the instant accident on the same day.
3. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle, and the plaintiffs are the children of the deceased.
Plaintiff
B: (a) On January 31, 2018, the Seoul Family Court 2018-Ma-Ma 54176, which gave up the deceased’s property inheritance; and (b) on January 31, 2018, the same judgment was made in the same case
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident.
C. The Defendant asserts that the deceased’s negligence is more than 30% since the deceased’s failure to perform his/her duty of care to examine whether a narrow road passes through night.
However, as seen earlier, there is a possibility that pedestrians will pass through because delivery is installed on the front side of the road in which the defendant vehicle was waiting for, and in particular, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence that the driver of the defendant vehicle, even though the deceased had already started to cross the said road, was caused by the negligence that the driver of the vehicle, while she had discharged the duty of front-time care.