손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 71,551,485 as well as 5% per annum from March 21, 1995 to February 1, 2019.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) C are D vehicles around 09:05 on March 21, 1995 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).
)A F-Motor vehicle driven by E (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) by driving a motor vehicle of F (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) in which E (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) was directly driven in violation of the signal, etc. at the intersection where the signal, etc. was installed while driving on the road in the direction of the direction of the
) The left-hand side of the Defendant vehicle shocked the front side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the Plaintiff, was faced with the face of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to a glass view destroyed by the instant accident.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract. The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, and 2-2
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 Plaintiff’s claim for damages was extinguished due to the completion of the statute of limitations, since around April 27, 1995, the Plaintiff became aware of the occurrence of damages caused by the instant accident, which was prepared by a medical certificate (No. 2-2) against the Plaintiff, around April 27, 1995.
According to Gap evidence No. 2-2, the plaintiff was issued a medical certificate that the plaintiff had remaining scambling due to the heat on April 27, 1995. Thus, the plaintiff was aware that the accident of this case occurred around that time.
Therefore, the plaintiff's direct right to claim under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Code, which the plaintiff has against the defendant, shall be deemed to have taken three years of extinctive prescription from April 27, 1995.
However, A.