손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs ordering additional payment shall be revoked.
The defendant is the plaintiff.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) C is based on the basis of liability: D rocketing car at around 12:15 September 17, 2007 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
2) While the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving and turn to the left on the front side of the above complex into the F apartment room, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving, who was on the right right side from the F apartment room, the left side side of the Defendant’s vehicle driving at the F apartment room, was shocked to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and caused the Plaintiff’s injury such as brain dust, etc., and caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Plaintiff, who was on the front part of the Defendant vehicle, to the front part of the vehicle. (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
C. The limitation of liability is limited, however, since the plaintiffs' negligence in the case of the plaintiffs, while neglecting the front line and not temporarily stop at the intersection without signal, it shall be considered as the negligence of the plaintiffs A and the negligence of the victims of the plaintiff B, it is reasonable to view that the ratio is 20%, and the defendant's responsibility is limited to 80%.
On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the damage was increased as a result of the plaintiff Gap's failure to wear a safety cap at the time of the accident, but the statement of No. 4 (Medical Certificate) alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the actual sulfur survey document stated that the plaintiff Gap wear a safety cap at the time of the accident). The above assertion is not accepted.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The scope of liability for damages is below.