손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 105,332,340, and Plaintiff B and C, respectively, KRW 66,54,893 and each of the said money. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27205, May 3, 2016>
1. Facts of premise;
A. D, around 16:55 on May 3, 2016, driving the Defendant’s insured vehicle and driving the first lane of the second line road of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, with the front line of the second line of the road of the Seoul Metropolitan City as the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the front line.
B. At the time, the foregoing vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) 1 and 2 lanes opposite to the foregoing vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) were parked in the vehicle, and the front end of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Dissenting vehicle”) was stopped near the end of the crosswalk.
C. However, while the blue signal for pedestrians in a crosswalk is on-and-off at the preliminary stage of the red signal change, F entered the crosswalk rapidly into the crosswalk and the crosswalk, and immediately after that change by red signal, F went to the crosswalk without stopping.
On the other hand, the defendant vehicle, which reduces the speed and has stopped very short time before the crosswalk, started driving on the crosswalk immediately, but passed after the opposite vehicle, without finding out the marf, was shocked by the fronter of the defendant vehicle.
E. During the process of being treated as the above accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”), F was killed on May 4, 2016 as a multi-long-term care unit, and F (hereinafter “the deceased”), there is Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and C, who is the spouse, as the inheritor of F (hereinafter “the deceased”).
F. Meanwhile, the Defendant Vehicle G driver was convicted of one year of suspended execution in June of the Treasury on the ground that the Defendant Vehicle G was negligent in the course of business due to negligence on the part of the previous duties in relation to the instant accident, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, and 13's statements, Gap 10's photographs, Gap 11's evidence, Eul 4's video and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (i) The Defendant is liable for damages of this case.