손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff Lochiex, which constitutes the following order for payment.
Based on the facts, Plaintiff A is a person engaged in the transportation business and is the owner of B Trrler (hereinafter “instant cargo”). Plaintiff Nrtex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is the owner who requested the transportation of the instant cargo under the ownership of the Plaintiff Company.
The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D, the owner of the C-Scar car (hereinafter referred to as “the automobile in this case”).
D around 06:00 on December 23, 2013, the instant accident occurred and occurred, driving the instant passenger car, proceeding from the front Eth (hereinafter referred to as “instant road”) to the front Eth (hereinafter referred to as “the front Eth”) of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the instant road, to the front Eth (hereinafter referred to as “the instant road”), and shocked the Plaintiff Company’s L CD inspection reproduction test test site (hereinafter referred to as “the instant cargo”), which was loaded on the instant cargo loaded on the two-lanes of the same road, and accordingly, the instant cargo was damaged.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). On-site drug map of the instant accident is as shown in the attached Form.
[The ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 10 to 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Eul evidence Nos. 9 to 11, and the whole purport of oral pleadings, and the cargo of this case at the time of the accident of this case's assertion by the parties to the whole purport of oral pleadings, the freight of this case was parked on the side of the delivery between the two-lanes of the road of this case in order to unload the freight of this case. Thus, although the freight of this case protruding the freight of this case as the left side of the freight of this case, the freight of this case did not lead to
In addition, the freight of this case was parked in the two-lane parking zone, and was parked in the two-lane parking zone.
However, D violated the duty of safe driving, one lane of the road in this case.