beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2020.07.14 2019가단64386

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 76,013,772 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 50,342,515 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them from January 2, 2019 to July 20, 2020.

Reasons

D) On January 2, 2019, around 03:55, the fact that the liability for damages occurred, D driving a motor vehicle for the E Manc Track Cargo (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and driving the 231km point in the upper west of the central tower in the Hacknju, the upper part of the 25 tons of the F Driving Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”) that runs about about 30 km in speed in front of the Plaintiff Company while driving at about 231km in the upper west of the central tower in the Hacknju, at about 32 kilometers of the two-lane, at about the speed of 30 km.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). A due to the instant accident, D died of an cardiopulmonary suspension due to brain damage, etc.

(hereinafter “D”. The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.

Plaintiff

A is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff B is the mother of the deceased.

[Based on the recognition] The plaintiff asserts that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff of the parties concerned, claiming that the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant vehicle's fault at low speed because the defendant vehicle violated the minimum speed due to the cargo loaded in excess of the loading weight, and that the negligence of the defendant vehicle should be assessed at 35%.

이에 대하여 피고는, 피고 차량은 적재중량에 관한 도로교통법상 단속규정을 위반하지 않았으며, 차폭등을 켠 상태로 운행하였으므로, 피고 차량은 과실상계의 고려 요소인 약한 의미의 부주의가 있을 뿐이고, 이 사건 사고는 망인의 전방주시 태만 등의 전적인 과실로 발생한 것이어서 피고에게 불법행위가 성립하지 않는다고 주장한다.

In order to determine the existence and degree of the tortfeasor's negligence, which is the requisite for the establishment of a tort in the event of a traffic accident of both parties' negligence and limited liability, the violation of the duty of care is the basis, and the Road Traffic Act is provided.

참조조문