손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) from January 17, 2014, with respect to KRW 53,112,310, and KRW 500,00 for each of the said money to Plaintiff C and B.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On January 17, 2014, at around 00:47, Nonparty D driven an EF car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.14%, and turned ahead of the GG hospital located in Gwangju Mine-gu by two-lanes along the two-lanes from the front of the new post office located in the high-tech area. D is driving along the intersection in violation of the signal signal at the front section of the road and the crosswalk, while passing through the intersection and passing through the intersection in violation of the signal signal at the front section of the road, and driving along the crosswalk under pedestrian signals at the right side of the road (hereinafter referred to as the “accident in this case”).
2) As a result of the foregoing accident, Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as blood from a external wound with no head open wound, cerebral brain and cerebral brain damage without a head open wound, pelle to the left pelle, pelle to the upper left pelle, pelle to the upper right pelle, pelle to the upper right pelle, pelle to the upper right pelle, and pelle to the pelle.
3) Plaintiff B and C are the children of Plaintiff A. The Defendant is the person who entered into an insurance contract for vehicles E. [based on recognition], the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 17, and 18 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. Under Article 3 (Liability for Damages) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Articles 724 (Direct Claim against Insurer) and 726-2 (Liability for Indemnification of Automobile Insurers) of the Commercial Act, the Defendant is liable to compensate for all damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.
C. The defendant's claim on the limitation of liability is a new wall for accident time, and since the road of four-lanes, the plaintiff A may have an abnormal driving vehicle for traffic signal violations, and the defendant A is negligent in neglecting his/her duty to cross the crosswalk by properly examining the direction of progress, and thus, the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of such circumstances.
In this case, the plaintiff A suffered an accident at the second-lane.