손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 249,543,452 for Plaintiff A and B; and (b) KRW 5,00,000 for Plaintiff C; and (c) from September 17, 2017 to September 2019.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) E is the freight truck on September 17, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
A) A driving of the vehicle, while driving the vehicle at a speed of about 79 km in the direction of return from F to the direction of the intersection at the entrance of the cartoon book of Busan-gun, Busan-gun, the one lane was driven at a speed of about 30 km in the direction of return. However, as at the time, E was in the state of sucking immediately after the fright, while driving the vehicle at a speed of 79 km speed exceeding the speed of 48 km per hour, E turned off the vehicle to the opposite lane by failing to properly operate the steering and steering gear at a speed of 79 km, while driving the vehicle at a speed of speed exceeding the speed of 48 km. Eind Plaintiff A was on the top of the fright and operated the vehicle at the opposite lane, but conflict between the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s driving vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) On September 17, 2017, G died due to the instant accident.
(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). Plaintiff A and B are the parents of the deceased, and Plaintiff C are the births of the deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs who are the deceased and their bereaved family members due to the accident of this case.
C. The Defendant asserts that even though the surface was milched upon the instant accident, the Plaintiff Company neglected the duty of continuous operation and the duty of pre-ception, and that the Deceased did not wear the safety belt. This error contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage.
However, the above errors were found by the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3.
It is not enough to recognize the causal relationship between the failure to perform the duty of continuous operation and the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, and it is different.