beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.02.21 2017나8010

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the owner of E-si for business use (hereinafter the defendant's vehicle).

B. Around 01:00 on July 29, 201, F driven the Defendant’s vehicle, in violation of the bypass prohibition signal in the direction of the 4-Dong-dong along the H private-distance intersection in front of the G apartment of Daejeon-gu from the direction of the 4-Dong-dong, and obstructed the Plaintiff’s bicycle crossinging the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signal from its running direction to the left-hand side of the Defendant’s driving direction, and caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as external wound, etc., on the top of the front-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 16, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as an operator of the defendant vehicle.

B. Meanwhile, when a bicycle rider crosses the road on a crosswalk, he/she shall get off his/her bicycle and walk the bicycle (Article 13-2(6) of the Road Traffic Act), notwithstanding the provision of Article 13-2(6) of the Road Traffic Act, the Plaintiff was negligent in crossing the road on a crosswalk with his/her bicycle, and such negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage.

As such, the Defendant’s negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated. However, the Defendant’s liability ratio is limited to 95%, considering the background of the instant accident, the fault of the Defendant’s vehicle’s violation of signal (including a bypass signal device and a bypass signal signal sign at the scene of the accident), the injury part and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury, etc.

3. Under the scope of liability for damages, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are written in Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 18; the result of the first instance court’s commission of physical appraisal (as of May 14, 2014) and the result of fact inquiry (as of March 12, 2015).