손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 299,653,621 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 1, 201 to March 13, 2014.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) Nonparty B’s vehicle with C Ab-Wn-Wn-Wn-Wn-W-on (hereinafter “instant A-Wn-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-C
) A driving of the Plaintiff, at the highest level in front of the Young-dong School located in Busan Metropolitan City (D) in Ulsan Island, kid the central line, and franchising along the opposite line at the intersection of the captain police station, and driving in front of the Seocho-dong School (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”), the part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s G Emats Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”), which continued to run in a two-lane and continued to run in a two-lane, shall conflict with the front part of the Plaintiff’s G Emats Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s G Emats Vehicle”), which includes the upper part of the upper part of the closed franchising frame, the upper part of the closed franchising line, the right-hand ske, the right-hand skelet, the closed ske, the closed frans, the bottom, the lower part of the open frans, the air sect, and so forth.
2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant Maritime Vehicle owned by B.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 10 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of recognition as the basis of liability, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence committed while the central line was invaded in the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the accident, the defendant, the insurer of the vehicle
C. The defendant's assertion as to limitation of liability is that since the plaintiff did not wear the safety belt at the time of the accident of this case, it should be the ground for offsetting negligence. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
Rather, according to the video of Gap evidence 15, it can be seen that the plaintiff's left part is caused by wearing a safety belt on his chest.