손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34,766,538; and (b) KRW 700,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) respectively, from January 19, 2013 to October 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. At around 21:53 on January 19, 2013, C driving a D cab (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving a one-lane of the front road in front of the Cheong fishery information and communication station located in the Cheong-dong Cheong-dong Cheong-gu Cheong-gu Cheong-dong at the front of the Cheong-gu Cheong-dong at the front of the E-driving station, which was turned off on the opposite side beyond the center line due to the failure to properly perform the safety driving duty, and thereby, e-driving’s front right side and fenced part of the E-driving’s vehicle, which was moving back to the right side of the Defendant vehicle, was shocked with the front side of the Defendant vehicle, and suffered injury, such as the lower part of the upper part of the upper right side of the back side of the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the salt and tension, schill, and tension, tension, etc.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid contract for the defendant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed on the ground that, since the Plaintiffs received KRW 7,00,000 from the Defendant’s driver C after the accident of this case and agreed to bring a non-civil or criminal complaint, the Defendant did not raise any civil or criminal objection.
According to Gap evidence No. 8-1, the plaintiffs received KRW 7,00,00 from C around the beginning of April 2013 and affixed a written agreement stating that "no civil or criminal objection shall be raised." However, it is reasonable to view that the above supplementary claim agreement merely is a simple example in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 8-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings. Thus, the defendant's defense of this safety cannot be accepted.
1 C shall be the defendant on April 3, 2013.