손해배상(자)
1. As to KRW 122,238,547 among the Plaintiff and KRW 103,975,77 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall: (a) from October 22, 2015 to September 19, 2017.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) The Plaintiff, without wearing a safety cap, was on October 22, 2015, on the back of the lower part of the new wall, and was on the back of the new wall, and was on the part of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Do Do Do Do Do dong (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle
2) The Defendant 1 suffered from the injury of the left eyebrow, the scrow, the scrow, the scam and the scam of the scam and the scam of the scam (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited by taking account of these errors, since the Plaintiff’s error affected the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by the instant accident, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety cap due to the mistake that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety cap, and that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety cap in the event of the instant accident. However, there is no causation between the Plaintiff’s failure to wear the safety cap and the Plaintiff’s major injury resulting from the instant accident. Furthermore, the said heat is a minor injury, which is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s loss of labor ability due to the instant accident, and is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s loss of labor ability due to the instant accident. Accordingly, the Defendant’s argument is without merit. Moreover, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited by taking account of these errors.
In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the driver's duty of care on the front-time basis of the driver, and the plaintiff who participated in each of the above franites.