손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) 9,441,349 won to Plaintiff A; (b) 941,068 won to Plaintiff B; and (c) 941,068 won to each of the said money. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25520, Jul. 25, 20
1. At around 16:30 on July 25, 2014, C driven by a private taxi owned by C (hereinafter “instant taxi”) and turned to the left at the seat of the new market, the lower portion of the left portion of the Plaintiff A’s E-cargo (hereinafter “instant cargo vehicle”) on the front portion of the instant taxi, which was located on the surface of the new market located on the e-cargo distance from the e-mail distance room to the new market, while driving the Do private taxi on the 16:30 on the 25th of July 2014.
(hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”). The Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff B, who was on the driver’s seat of the instant cargo vehicle, was on the top of the instant cargo vehicle, sustained the injury of each of the instant traffic accidents, resulting in the cryp and the tension of the cryp and the cryp of the cryp.
(hereinafter “each of the instant injuries”). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity which has entered into an automobile accident compensation mutual aid agreement with C on the instant taxi.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4; Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4; video (including branch numbers, if any); the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. (1) According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for each of the damages caused by the instant traffic accident as a mutual aid business entity for the instant taxi.
(2) The limitation of liability is limited to the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the facts as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including the number of pages), and the location where the traffic accident of this case occurred is an intersection where yellow dust is installed. In other words, Plaintiff A, the driver of the freight of this case, also has the duty of care to look at the front and right and the right and the right when entering the said intersection, and drive safely by reducing the speed of the vehicle, and the road to which the freight vehicle of this case entered, is the taxi of this case.