손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 368,215,190 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 22, 2014 to April 27, 2017, and the following.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) B B is a C car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
A) On April 22, 2014, at around 05:00, 05, the Plaintiff driven the intersection in the 1511-lane south-si, Namyang-si, Gyeongyang-si, and made a left turn at the two-lanes of the two-lane road at the port of the port of view, from the parallel where signal lights are installed, and there was a difficulty in surrounding areas at the time. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff was negligent in neglecting the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the duty to operate safely in accordance with the new subparagraph, the Plaintiff’s Daba (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) operated the Plaintiff’s Daba (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) in the right and right and right and the right and right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and duty are operated safely in contravention of the signal.
2) Defendant 1 was the left-hand door of Defendant 1’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) 2) The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as cage cage cages, etc. due to the instant accident, and the said cage cages were damaged.
However, B immediately stopped and did not take necessary measures such as aiding and abetting the plaintiff, and escaped from the site.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle. (C) However, as the Plaintiff also entered the intersection where the passage signal was changed to the going signal while waiting for the stop signal at the said intersection (the fact that the Plaintiff is a person, whether a vehicle has already entered the intersection, and whether a vehicle has already entered the intersection, and even if there was a duty to investigate whether there was a vehicle having already been a vehicle entering the intersection, and to prevent the accident by entering the intersection, it is erroneous in violation of this provision, and such