손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 313,803,965; and (b) KRW 309,803,965; and (c) KRW 3,000,000 for Plaintiff A, D, and E, respectively.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) F is a G dump truck around 9:40 on June 7, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(B) In order to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant was driving along the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes of the two-lanes: (a) the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes in front of the two-lanes; and (b) the said two-lanes are moving to the side of the said road and stopped, and (c) the U.S. was negligent in moving to the side of the said road and stopped
(ii)the IZR1400 Ghana (hereinafter referred to as “the part of the net”) operated by it;
) The front right side part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked on the left side and caused the deceased’s death (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) Plaintiff A is the parent of the Deceased, Plaintiff B, and C, the Plaintiff D, and E, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9 through 14, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(ii) Nos. (i) and (ii), and the purport of the entire pleading
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, who is liable for the damage suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
C. The limitation of liability is limited, however, because the deceased did not go through the intersection of the yellow flashing signal, such errors shall be deemed to have contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and the defendant's responsibility shall be limited to 80% in consideration of such circumstances.
As the Defendant stops in the state of 190km/h, the Defendant asserts that the deceased’s negligence was larger than that of the deceased as at the time of the instant accident, but, as at the time of the instant accident, A No. 12 (Appraisal) and A.