손해배상(자)
1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 25,00,00, and KRW 13,622,364, respectively, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B, C, and D, on October 31, 2014.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The network E (hereinafter “the network”).
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who, around March 21, 2014, entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the above F and H truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) with respect to the wife, Plaintiff B, C, and D of the Deceased. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the deceased on or around March 21, 2014.
3) On October 31, 2014, the Deceased moved the instant vehicle driven by I around 15:35, along the instant vehicle driven by I, along the two-lanes along the direction of the 216.5km in the direction of the astronomical Seogsan Highway (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) and the said vehicle turns out into a broom, and the said vehicle moves back beyond the brooms (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).
(A)Along with the occurrence of injury to brain and cerebrovascular, died on November 1, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 2, and 5 (including the number of pages 1; hereinafter the same shall apply)
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
B. 1) According to the above facts, the defendant, the insurer of the automobile comprehensive insurance for the instant vehicle, is obligated to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident to the deceased, who is the inheritor of the deceased. 2) Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited to the defendant's liability, since the deceased was negligent at the time of the instant accident because he did not make the safety labelling team, and that the deceased was on board the instant vehicle for the work of "G" and obtained operational benefits therefrom, so the driver I's negligence should be considered as the negligence on the part of the victim.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the deceased did not have a safety level at the time of the accident of this case, and it cannot be used as a ground for limitation of liability of the defendant.
In addition, the deceased was on board the instant vehicle for the work at the time of the instant accident, but such circumstance alone is alone.