손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 41,015,500 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 700,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of the said money from December 6, 2017 to January 2021.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) D, on December 6, 2017, while driving a vehicle for E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving to the left on the road of the Fanyang-gun, Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Plaintiff, walking along the opposite side of the Defendant vehicle direction, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury, such as blood transfusion, fluoral salt and tension with the external brue, which does not have any address in the open two parts, and the frame and closure of a single cage fage, other than the 1 fus fus, at the same time.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle.
4) Plaintiff B is the partner of Plaintiff A.
【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute as to Gap, Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 6, 14 through 19, Eul evidence of No. 1 and 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances.
The defendant asserts that even though D, as the driver of the defendant vehicle, suspended the defendant vehicle before the shocking of the plaintiff A, the plaintiff's driver was not responsible for the driver of the defendant vehicle because he lost his balance on his own and examined the hand on the net set of the defendant vehicle that has already ceased. However, according to the overall purport of the statement and the changes of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 6, according to the whole purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 6, and 6, the plaintiff's injury sustained by the defendant vehicle A by the accident of this case can be recognized, and there is no other evidence to reverse this.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.
(c)
In the event that the plaintiff A walk a road as a limitation on liability, it is necessary to walk safely to the side of the road by taking into account the surrounding vehicle condition well.