beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.10.07 2013가단214399

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,88,896 on the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from January 21, 2012 to October 7, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At around 03:03 on January 21, 2012, Nonparty B, driving a C vehicle in the vicinity of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City T-mix Underground Road, and driving the three-lanes of the three-lanes of the three-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-way radius from the side of the two-way radius. In such a case, Nonparty B, as a driver, neglected his duty of care to prevent an accident by accurately examining the front side and the right and the left side, and caused the Plaintiff without permission to walk the road to the right side from the left side of the course of the said vehicle, due to the negligence of neglecting his/her duty of care to prevent an accident, and neglecting his/her duty of care to prevent the accident.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff suffered from injury (hereinafter “the instant injury”) due to the instant accident, such as the main cover of the “head-maid, brain-dead, pulmonary malone, pulmonary malone, malone’s structural malone, and saves, saves, and saves, and saves, and was hospitalized in the Acheon University Street Hospital, D Hospital, etc.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the above vehicle with B.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 12 evidence, Eul 1 through 3, and 6 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above facts of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the above vehicle.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted prior to the limitation of liability, B, along with a new road near the underground tea. However, the Plaintiff’s six-lane road from the six-lane road in the state of drinking prior to the instant accident, without permission, crossing the above road near the underground tea at night.

Recognizing the fact that the accident in this case occurred, the plaintiff's negligence is the cause of the accident in this case.