손해배상(자)
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant): (a) KRW 30,175,934; (b) KRW 2,00,000; and (c) KRW 2,000; and (d) KRW 30,000 to Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant A.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (1) On April 21, 201, E driven a F bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 13:00 on April 21, 201, and proceeding along one-lane of the two-lane roads in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, excluding bus-only roads, from the floodside of the office space of Gangseo-gu, the road of Gangseo-gu, Seoul along the two-lanes of the two-lane road, excluding bus-only roads, from the floodside of the office space of Gangseo-gu, and caused the Plaintiff, who opened the front stop line of the crosswalk and the crosswalk to the right side of the Defendant vehicle due to the negligence that it was difficult to well see the front left side of the road.
As a result, E suffered injury to Plaintiff A, such as the groundrreververization of the left-hand laver, the left-hand lavers and lavers, lavers, the left-hand lavers, the lavers, the lavers, the lavers, the lavers and la
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). (2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff D is the partner of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a mutual aid project operator who has concluded a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, 12, 15, Eul 1, 2
(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case unless there are special circumstances.
2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of immunity and counterclaim
A. The Defendant’s assertion of exemption and counterclaim claim (1) The Defendant’s assertion is that there is a transformer system on the right side of the Plaintiff Company A, which began to collapse, and the two-lanes of the two-lanes of illegal parking, E’s official distance and the brake distance, which is a bus driver, were less shorter, could not avoid collision between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff, even if E, a bus driver, had experienced danger and was taking bracing, and thus, the instant accident is the negligence of the Plaintiff Company A and the illegal parked taxi.