beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.14 2018가단5049457

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff KRW 6,961,538; (b) Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F, respectively; and (c) against each of the said KRW 4,307,692 on February 2, 2017.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) H refers to the Defendant’s vehicle on February 28, 2017, around 19:20, 19:20:

(B) While driving his vehicle and driving his vehicle, the J, which entered the above road, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant vehicle while driving his vehicle, while driving his vehicle on the king-dong Doang-dong Hasking-dong Gyeongcheon-J was driving. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).

2) On the ground of the instant accident, J died due to cardiopulmonary suspension.

(3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. (4) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F are the deceased’s children.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 1 through 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole of the pleadings and arguments

B. According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s driver should be exempted from liability on the ground that the Defendant’s vehicle driver’s accident occurred due to the front mistake of the deceased who entered a speed in high speed as a soundproof wall to which the pedestrian’s access is difficult, and that the pedestrian would not have a duty of care to drive while predicting the pedestrian’s walking.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, namely, the instant accident site is an ancient speed road, but a pedestrian is accessible to the point of accident due to the kings and L in the vicinity of the accident site. The instant accident site was secured by a straight line, such as street, etc., but the Deceased has the side of the highly accelerated road prior to the occurrence of the instant accident.