손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,715,186 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 23, 2014 to August 22, 2019.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On July 23, 2014, around 08:30 on July 23, 2014, C: (a) while driving a Done Starex vehicle and driving on the road front of the Shicheon-gu E Apartmentdong, Busan, the front part of the bicycle was overtaken by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as the pelvis-gu pelvis-gu, the upper left-hand pelvis-gu, the pelvis-gu, the pelvis-gu, the pelvis-gu, the pelvis-gu, the pelvis-up, the Daum-gu, the pelvis-gu, the pelvis-gu, the pelvis
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 for the defendant vehicle. The ground for recognition has no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (each entry including
B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion of exemption and limitation of liability for the Defendant’s exemption is based on the Plaintiff’s total negligence, and thus, the Defendant should be exempted on the ground that the instant accident occurred by changing the direction to the Defendant’s vehicle located in the front side, which was going through without passing along the right side of the direction of driving along the bicycle.
However, the following circumstances recognized by the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the entire argument, namely, the defendant vehicle appears to have failed to observe the vehicle line at the time of the accident in this case and proceeded over two lanes, and the defendant vehicle should have overtaken the prior bicycle at the time of the accident in this case.