가. 인정사실 (1) C은 2015. 5. 11. 22:50경 D 버스(이하 ‘피고 차량’이라고 한다)를 운전하여 김포시 E 앞 도로를 서울 방면에서 강화 방면으로 진행하던 중, 도로 위에 못이 박힌 철판으로 인해 피고 차량 타이어가 펑크나는 사고가 발생하자 편도3차로 중 3차로에 피고 버스를 정차하고 비상등을 켠 상태에서 차량 정비기사를 불러 피고 버스를 수리하고 있었다.

(2) While driving the said temporary G vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and driving along the three-lanes of the said three-lanes on the said road, F failed to find out the Defendant’s vehicle stopped and being repaired as above, and received the front direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (3) The F (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on the spot due to the instant accident.

(4) At the time of the instant accident, there were a large number of rains, and the surface was slicked.

(5) The Plaintiffs’ children are the insurers who concluded a comprehensive insurance contract on the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant is not responsible for the instant accident since the instant accident occurred solely due to the stroke driving of the Deceased, since the Defendant’s driver and mechanic turn on an emergency, and the Defendant took all measures to prevent the accident, such as setting up a stroke at a point of 100 meters following the Defendant’s vehicle.

It is insufficient to view that there was a triangulation installed on the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.