손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 41,714,285, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and each of the said money amounted to KRW 29,142,857, May 19, 2016.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
(a) Recognition 1) D is a metropolitan bus around 13:05 on May 19, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”)
) By driving a vehicle, the fourth line of the 4rd line of the Highway 14.7 km from the Incheon Seo-gu, Incheon Seo-gu, the fourth line of the 4rd line of the road at the speed of about 65 km in speed from the Seoul Myeon to the Incheon Myeon, while driving the road at the speed of about 65 km along the 4rd line of the Myeon in Seoul Myeon, and driving the road at the speed of the road without the front line, the part of the G “mati” vehicle leading to road cleaning, which was parked on the side of the road and stopped on the side with the defendant vehicle for the purpose of road cleaning, was received, due to the shock, and the last part of the H Poter cleaning vehicle, which was under cleaning the road (hereinafter the accident in this case) was received (hereinafter the accident in question).
1) As a result of the instant accident, I, who was cleaning in front of the said Poter cleaning vehicle, died at the site of a multi-presidential long-term unit (hereinafter “I”) (hereinafter “the Deceased”).
2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s spouse, and Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s children.
3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle. The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle.
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.
C. The defendant asserts that the responsibility of the defendant should be limited because he was cleaning on the expressway on the side with a high risk of accidents without taking proper safety measures under the Road Traffic Act. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence are as follows: the accident of this case occurred due to the driver of the defendant's vehicle's leaving the normal road due to driving on the roadside, and the deceased was cleaning before the two vehicles.