손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant: (a) Plaintiff A and B respectively KRW 3,380,952; and (b) KRW 5,071,428; (c) Plaintiff D, E, and G respectively; and (d) KRW 11,83,333; and (c) Plaintiff C.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In fact, H around 15:15 on January 8, 2015, 2015, around 15:15:15, H means a 1 ton cargo vehicle of I (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
2) Around the 200-day intersection in front of the K Hospital located in the JJ in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y. Since the 3-distance intersection is a three-distance intersection, H, a driving company, is required to drive safely while driving along and neglecting it, while neglecting it, he was found to have immediately left to the left, and by his negligence, found that the Matifer's Maflus, which was driven in the erobbbbbbbb in the ebbanum bank located in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y in the Y of the Y, the part on the right-hand part of the Defendant vehicle and caused the N in the ebabban, and died of N due to a cardiopulmonary suspension due to cerebrovassis on the same day (hereinafter referred to as the
2) The deceased’s children are the deceased’s children, the Plaintiff A and B are the deceased’s children, and the Plaintiff C are the wife of the networkO, the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Plaintiff C.
P was not involved in the instant lawsuit.
3) The Defendant is an insurer which has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition), without dispute, and evidence A
(2) written evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5; facts obvious to this court; the purport of the whole pleadings; and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. Accordingly, according to the recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs, who are some inheritors of the deceased, for damages arising from the instant accident pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.
The defendant asserts that L, a driver of Oralba, is a de facto spouse who was living together with the deceased at the same place of residence for not less than 30 years, and that L should also be considered as the negligence of the deceased in the accident of this case.
The defendant's assertion that L was a de facto marital relationship with the deceased.