beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.11.06 2017가단58646

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 89,810,070 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 7,427,867 to Plaintiff B; and each of them, from June 22, 2017 to November 2018.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a)The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 13, 15, and Eul evidence No. 4 (including the branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings:

(1) At around 14:10 on June 22, 2017, D driven a Eniboo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and brought about a 91-lane 138 distance from the month of the Daegu Seo-gu month to the 138-lane 2-lane 138, the two-lane 2nd, which was trying to turn back to the Flubspon in the sloped section of the Flubpon in the sloped section, from the grabsp Park, the front part of the vehicle of the Plaintiff A driver G or the other vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) of the Defendant vehicle, which was fludoned from the grabsp Park, to the grabp, as the gradon as the gb

Plaintiff

차량은 인도 쪽으로 튕겨나가 가로수에 충돌한 후 다시 인도 쪽으로 튕겨나갔다

(2) The plaintiff B is a person who was accompanied by the plaintiff's vehicle.

(3) In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as salted tensions and tensions, while Plaintiff B suffered bodily injury, etc. on the following bridge.

(4) The Defendant is an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with D as to the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case, unless there are special circumstances as an insurer.

C. Whether liability is limited (1) The defendant asserts that since the place where the accident in this case occurred is possible to move to the unprotective zone, the plaintiff A should reduce the speed in advance before entering the intersection in preparation for the presence of a non-protective zone vehicle, and carefully examine the progress of the opposite lane. However, the plaintiff A's negligence should be considered at least 30% since the plaintiff A's negligence enters the intersection without due care.

(ii).