손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 31,359,409, as well as 5% per annum from May 16, 2014 to January 25, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 16:45 on May 16, 2014, B: (a) the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) is deemed to be a vehicle.
2) The Plaintiff had entered Pyeongtaek-si D’s front and had entered the wrong way. Around approximately 50 meters back the Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff was found on the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and continued to run without discovery. due to the negligence in B, the Plaintiff incurred serious injury, such as the separation of the upper part of the Defendant’s vehicle into the lower part of the vehicle, the upper part of the lower part of the vehicle, and the separation of the lower part of the lower part of the vehicle into the lower part of the vehicle. The Plaintiff sustained serious injury, as a result of the negligence in B, such as the pelle of the lower part of the lower part of the vehicle, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the vehicle, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the pel, the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the lower part of the vehicle, which requires treatment of at least 20 weeks
(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6 (including each number), each of the images and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.
As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the accident of this case occurred entirely by the plaintiff's fatherism, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
C. The limitation of liability: (a) the instant accident place is a place where the vehicle can pass at any time because there is no distinction between delivery and vehicular road on the farm road with a width of about three meters; and (b) the Defendant’s vehicle was not driven at a rapid speed; and (c) the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the Defendant’s vehicle due to noise generated by the operation of the Defendant vehicle, etc.; and (d) the record of the instant case.