beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.06.12 2012가단23471

손해배상(자)등

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,810,032 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 7,912,023 to Plaintiff B; and (c) to each of them, from January 10, 2012 to June 1, 2014.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C around January 18:35, 2012, D Cargo Vehicles Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”), C, “C”, and “D Cargo Vehicles”.

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff, who was in the above building due to the accident, caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Dancheon-si, the Doncheon-si, by driving the Doncheon-si, and driving the Doncheon-si, by failing to comply with the duty of Cheongcheon-si in the front direction, while bypassing the Cheongcheon-si to the Cheongcheon-si through the Cheongcheon-si, the Don-si, and caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Doncheon-si, the Doncheon-si, and caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Doncheon-si, the Gan-si, the driver of the Don-si and the third party to compensate for all damages caused by the car accident that occurred during the operation of the Don-si.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 to No. 8, and 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 of this case.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, each corresponding item of the Schedule of Calculation of Compensation for Damages shall be as follows, and in principle, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

The plaintiff 1: The plaintiff was already aged 64 years at the time of the accident of this case in full view of the contents of Gap evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-7, and the purport of the whole argument.