손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: 161,860,192 won to Plaintiff A; 2,00,000 won to Plaintiff B; 1,000,000 won to Plaintiff C; and 1,000 won to Plaintiff D.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) E is G on the front road of the Daegu Suwon-gu (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) around May 8, 201 at around 23:20 on May 8, 201.
) At the time, the vehicle was parked after the Defendant’s vehicle was parked, and the Plaintiff, an E, the buyer of the vehicle, was reported to observe whether the Defendant’s vehicle was behind the vehicle, and thus, E, despite the duty of care to start the vehicle in a tently and safely, despite the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle was behind the vehicle, and the accident that the Plaintiff was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as damage to the power line of the marble marble part of the mar and broad bridge, and the structural end of the marble floor of heavy water. Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and Plaintiff D are the children of Plaintiff A.
The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above accident that occurred during the operation of the defendant's vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.
C. However, according to the above acknowledged evidence, the plaintiff A knew that E is moving back the defendant's vehicle, and thus, the plaintiff A neglected his duty of care to look about his safety in the direction behind the defendant's vehicle despite the fact that the plaintiff A had a duty of care to look about his safety in the direction behind the defendant's vehicle. In this case, the plaintiff A was negligent in contributing to the accident of this case.
As such, the defendant's liability is limited to 80%.
2. The following shall be stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages.