손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 20:55, April 28, 2014, C: (a) D Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”)
(B) Around December 30, 2007, the two-lanes of the above expressway, which are four-lanes in Incheon, the two-lanes of the FJC, the front part of the vehicle driving on the front side of the Defendant vehicle, and then the central separation zone and the right side of the FJC, the front part of the vehicle driving on the front side of the Defendant vehicle, were shocked (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The accident occurred, at the same time, the two-lanes of the FJC driving on the front part of the Defendant vehicle, which is the four-lanes in Incheon, was caused by the negligence that failed to properly perform the safety driving obligation, such as reducing the speed of the fJC and operating the steering and brakes properly (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).
(2) The Plaintiff was killed in the Defendant’s vehicle, which moved together with C, and returned to the company, and suffered injuries, such as open warning and pelkeing, due to the instant accident.
3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the defendant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
each entry, video, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.
C. However, according to the above macroscopic evidence, it is recognized that six persons are on board the Defendant’s vehicle with three fixed number of personnel and did not fasten the safety belt, and the Plaintiff’s fault contributed to the expansion of damages, thereby limiting the Defendant’s liability to 80%.
In order to receive additional collection expenses in the situation where the plaintiff's business was finished on the day, the defendant was on the defendant's vehicle within the scope of the prevention facility despite the met of C, and was on the accident of this case.