손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 233,292,320; and (b) KRW 5,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of the said money, from October 9, 2015 to October 2016.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a D bus around 05:42 October 9, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(i)A driver’s license and a road of four-lanes in front of the Friju station located in Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City E, by moving to a speed of about 10 to 15 km per hour along four-lanes from the right edge of the Bupyeong Park Cemetery in the direction of the intersection. At that time, the victim network G (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) passing the bicycle to the port from the right edge of the Defendant’s vehicle toward the pedestrian red signal.
(B) The deceased, who was found later and later turned to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, was turned to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and later turned to the front wheels, and again turned to the front wheels once again, resulting in the death of the deceased due to cardiopulmonary stop, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Plaintiff is the mother of the Deceased, the Plaintiff B is the deceased, and the Defendant is the mutual aid operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant, who is a mutual aid business on the defendant's vehicle, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident in this case.
C. Limit of liability: (a) as the deceased, there was a negligence on October 9, 105:42 at the new wall 05:42 (on sunrise, around 06:35) that he was trying to cross the crosswalk, which is a pedestrian red signal for the two-lane pedestrian, and that the deceased’s negligence was caused by the occurrence or expansion of the instant accident; (b) it was considered in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant should compensate for; (c) however, it is limited to the Defendant’s liability by taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the facts recognized earlier and the fact that C had been over two times.
The defendant is also negligent in not wearing a safety mother by the deceased.