손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,700,58 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 9, 2010 to February 16, 2016, and the following.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Fact 1) The Defendant is the Defendant’s vehicle B and C bargaining car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).
2) On July 9, 2010, D driving the Defendant’s vehicle (Ma1) around 13:15 on July 9, 2010, and driving the Defendant’s vehicle (Ma1) at the speed of 80km/h F in front of the speed of 80km/h in the Guang City E, at the same time, cross-sections in the direction of the high direction from the inside of the five-lane.
The Plaintiff attempted to be a U.S.ton, and the front wheeler of G Lasta car (Ma2; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) driven by the Plaintiff at a speed of about 50 km/h in accordance with the new heading, and the front wheeler of the Defendant’s vehicle conflict with each other.
(3) The accident site was prohibited from allowing the original U-turns, and thus, a yellow solid line was added on the floor to a white line with which the U-turns can be seen. (4) The Plaintiff suffered the upper part of the brain, salv, salvine, salvine, and salvines due to the instant accident.
5) Meanwhile, the Defendant paid KRW 2,05,870, and KRW 744,990 to H who boarded the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon in the instant accident. [Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul’s evidence 3, 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as an insurer.
C. Although the limitation of liability is limited, D’s fault that attempted to stop ahead of a vehicle without due care and attempted to stop, but the Plaintiff was significantly different compared to other passengers, and the Plaintiff did not wear safety belts in that it was diagnosed on the two sides, etc. even if the air bags were set back, and the error was caused by the expansion of the damages in this case, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 90%.
(10% of the Plaintiff’s fault ratio) 2. The scope of liability for damages is set aside separately below.