손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 86,944,118; and (b) KRW 11,411,513 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of the said money from June 11, 2007 to June 2012.
1. Whether liability for damages arises;
A. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “insured vehicles”).
(2) At around 08:45 on June 11, 2007, D, driving an insured vehicle at the Goyang-dong on the side of the Suyang-dong, which had driven an insured vehicle and proceeded along one-lane from the cross-country bus terminal surface on the side of the horizontal road, and due to the negligence of neglecting the operation of the operation of the steering system on the side, D driven by the Plaintiff who was temporarily on a temporary stop in order to protect the pedestrians who had driven the insured vehicle with the front part of the driver’s seat of the insured vehicle, and caused the shock of the driver’s length behind the steering of the E vehicle he was accompanied by the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Plaintiffs suffered from the injury, such as the salts of the bones, bones, and the bones of neck, etc.
(3) The Plaintiff A suffered from diseases, such as cerebriform Encephal pulmonary typhism, brue damage, and external stress disorder due to a traffic accident even before the date of closing the argument in this case more than four years after the date of the accident in this case. The Plaintiff A shows chronic symptoms, such as chronic symptoms, such as the fall of the left side's vision, clothes, visual and visual disability, two throughes, internal and emulgion, and emulging of the upper side, the emulging of both sides and legs, the fall short of both hand, the emulging of the upper side, and walking disorder
[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 4, 5, 57 evidence, Eul 1, 3, and 4 evidence (including each number), each of these statements and images, and the result of this court's commission of physical examination to the Guro Hospital and the result of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole arguments and arguments
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
C. (1) The plaintiff defendant asserts that the responsibility of the defendant for the above plaintiff's damage should be limited, since D is based on the wind that the plaintiff A voluntarily stops due to force majeure.
However, in order for the plaintiff A to protect pedestrians.