가. 원고는 2014. 5. 12. 07:50경 아산시 배방읍 북수리에 있는 봉강교 위의 편도 1차로의 도로를 E 방면에서 L아파트 방면으로 그 길 우측 가장자리를 따라 걸어가다 같은 방향으로 진행하던 콘크리트믹서 트럭(이하 ‘이 사건 사고트럭’이라 한다)의 우측 전면부에 부딪혀 대퇴부 외상성 절단, 광범위한 으깸손상 등의 상해를 입었다

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) B.

The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver who neglected the duty of care on the road without distinction between the roadway and the sidewalk.

C. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the instant truck.

Plaintiff

The succeeding intervenor paid KRW 50,526,260 as a disability pension to the Plaintiff between November 2014 and February 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 24 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's or 12, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact that the damage compensation liability occurred, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused by the accident in this case caused by the negligence of the driver of the truck in this case as the insurer of the accident in this case.

On the other hand, the defendant should pass along the roadside in the direction opposite to the motor vehicle and the horse on the road that is not divided into the sidewalk and the roadway, but the plaintiff's error that passed in the same direction as the motor vehicle and the horse also caused the accident of this case, and thus, the defendant's responsibility should be restricted. Thus, according to Article 8 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, pedestrians should pass through the roadside or the roadside in the direction opposite to the motor vehicle and the horse on the road that is not divided into the sidewalk and the roadway, but the passage of pedestrians should be made in the direction opposite to the motor vehicle and the horse or the roadside in the direction opposite to the motor vehicle and the roadway. However