손해배상(자)
1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 13,770,497, and KRW 3,688,174 and each of the said money, the Defendant’s payment to Plaintiff B from July 30, 2016 to July 30, 2019.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) D means the E-si vehicle at around 13:55 on July 30, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) A driving of the bus, the front part of the bus driven in the city of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and the front part of the bus driven in excess of the central line, from 89 degrees Do, was shocked in front of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff, a passenger of the Defendant vehicle, suffered respectively the injury, such as brain satis in which there are no two boxes open, satis and tensions of satis, satiss and tensions, open openings of satis, heat openings of satis, satis, satisf, and escape, etc., and the Plaintiff B suffered respectively the injury of the Plaintiff’s satisf’s base and tension, satisf’s base and tension, satisf’s base and tension, satfe’s kne, knee’s base, and satfaref’s base, and satisf’s base and details, which are
3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle. 【Ground of recognition】 the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 to 3 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as the plaintiffs sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances.
C. As to the limitation of liability, Plaintiff A: (a) states that the following circumstances recognized by the description of Plaintiff A’s evidence and the purport of the entire pleading, the Plaintiff’s failure to wear protective gear at all in the emergency information area of Plaintiff A; (b) considering Plaintiff A’s injury part, the circumstances of this case, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have not been worn with safety belts; and (c) the Plaintiff’s error was deemed to have contributed to the expansion of damages. Therefore, the Defendant’s negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate for, and the Defendant’s negligence should be considered as 10%.