손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 4,019,90 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 2, 2015 to April 27, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 06:00 on November 2, 2015, Category B: (a) a passenger car at around 06:00 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) A driver, while driving Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and driving a resignation tunnel in 27 along his/her resignation along the median line along one lane between the two-lanes from the intersection of his/her own door to the intersection of his/her own road, the front part of the E-Poter II of the D Driving that proceeds along the one-lane line of the opposite direction, was shocked in front of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).
2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the Defendant’s vehicle, was injured by the Defendant’s satisfe at the right direction.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant for the instant vehicle. (4) On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant regarding the instant accident as follows.
(1) The Plaintiff paid KRW 51,00,000,000 as the agreed amount and waives the right to claim interest and costs of lawsuit against the Defendant.
(2) However, in cases where the plaintiff needs an operation to be conducted in the next direction, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff expenses for medical treatment through medical advice.
③ If an additional disability arises to the Plaintiff compared to the disability at the time of the agreement in this case, the Defendant shall additionally compensate the Plaintiff, along with the Defendant’s medical advice and the doctor’s opinion at the Korea University Hospital.
(4) The Defendant shall additionally compensate the Plaintiff for the reflectors of the form of drinking alcohol.
5) On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff received a re-operation with the right slicker, the lower right slicker. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of all pleadings.
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, sustained the Plaintiff’s loss due to the instant accident.