beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.13 2018가단5177338

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 63,239,972 as well as 5% per annum from February 9, 2018 to November 13, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) C: (a) around 15:30 on February 9, 2018, DPoter II Freeboard (hereinafter “Defendant”)

) While driving a vehicle, without signal, etc. in front of the tugboat and the roadway in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, there is no signal, etc. in front of the tugboat and turn to the south side of the road from the south side to the south side of the road, the Plaintiff, who walked on three way to the starboard side from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle, was shocked with the left side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter the above traffic accident is referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff sustained an injury, such as blood transfusion, etc. due to the instant traffic accident.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9 through 12, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2

each entry or video, the whole purport of the pleading;

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. However, according to Gap evidence No. 11, the accident location of this case is recognized as not only the signal apparatus was not installed but also a narrow road that is not distinguished from India and roadway. The plaintiff also committed an error of walking along the above road without examining the flow of the vehicle.

Since the plaintiff's mistake is the cause of occurrence or expansion of damages, it is limited to 90% of the defendant's liability by taking this into account in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it shall be the same as each corresponding item of the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation Amount, and shall be for the convenience of calculation.