손해배상(자)
1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 428,816,920, Plaintiff B’s KRW 5,000,000, and each of the said money, the Defendant from May 1, 2015 to 20.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 12:00 on May 1, 2015, D is the E-Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s vehicle.
) A driver, while driving his vehicle while driving on the G cafeteria near the G cafeteria located in the west-gun F, the Defendant was allowed to leave his vehicle on the stroke by driving the vehicle and transferred the vehicle to the waterway (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff A, who was on the back seat of the Defendant’s vehicle, sustained injury, such as an external woundoconsis, gymnasium, and a prop-pyroconsis.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle. 4) The Plaintiffs are married or married.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, Eul's 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances, since the plaintiff A was injured due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.
C. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited by taking into account the reduction of the amount of damages caused by the accompanying passengers in consideration of the personal relationship between the plaintiff A and the driver of the defendant's vehicle, the background leading up to the boarding of the defendant's vehicle, etc.
The amount of compensation may be reduced if, in light of the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, the operator of a vehicle permits the transit for the convenience and interest of the passengers without any consideration and receives such a provision for his/her convenience and interest, if it is deemed that, in light of various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passengers and the operators, the circumstances he/she took over the vehicle, the reason why he/she took over the vehicle, in particular, the purpose and active nature of demanding the transit, etc., imposing liability identical to the general traffic accident on the perpetrator is deemed considerably unreasonable.
Supreme Court Decision 199Na1488 delivered on November 14, 1997