손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: KRW 92,543,394 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 16, 2016 to December 20, 2018; and
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In the event of an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”), C, on July 16, 2016, driven a chartered bus owned by D Limited Liability Company 00:45 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeded along five-lanes of the entrance of the Yongnam Village No. 10, 10,000 in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, pursuant to five-lanes of the Jinnam-do at the Jinnam-si, Jinnam-si, the entrance of the Jinnam Village No. 10, 10,000 in the Jinnam-si, the 5-lane of the Jinnam-si, which became a private intersection where the signal, etc. is installed, led to the collision of the signal apparatus near the right side of the intersection, in violation of the signal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who was aboard the Defendant’s front seat, was injured by the left-hand el executive fel and the left-hand open eel.2) as to Defendant vehicle insurance contract.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited to the Plaintiff’s negligence on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident, resulting in injury in the future. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered injury while entering the vehicle structure due to an accident, although the Plaintiff worn the safety labelling boat.
In light of the contents and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury, the internal photographs inside the Defendant’s vehicle, and the contents of investigation into the Defendant’s employees, etc., there are indirect facts suspected of the Plaintiff’s failure to wear the safety labelling boat at the time of the instant accident.
However, the inside of the defendant's vehicle, which has been sealed by the plaintiff's jobs, is inside.