beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 90,375,447; (b) KRW 55,250,298 to Plaintiff A; and (c) from December 8, 2014 to January 28, 2016 to Plaintiff B.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition C, around 14:05 on December 8, 2014, driven a D Copi-do vehicle, driven the D Copi-do vehicle into Gwangju metropolitan area at the two-lanes: (a) the two-lane road near the Sin-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si, Gwangju metropolitan area; (b) the vehicle was dissated on the surface where the vehicle was frighted to the intersection and pushed the median line to the opposite direction; and (c) the front part of the E driver’s fwing-ri-ri-ri-ri vehicle driven in the opposite direction while driving the central line, was shocked into the front part of the vehicle’s right side (hereinafter “the instant accident”); and (d) thereby, E died of the falpt due to the faltering of the Dan-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri vehicle.
Plaintiff
A is the wife of the network E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the plaintiff B is the deceased’s children, and the defendant is the insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract for the above column column vehicle driven by C.
[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul No. 1, and the purpose of the whole pleading
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, C was responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident, since C was to drive the above co-owned vehicle while causing the death of the deceased.
C. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of the above circumstances, since the deceased did not drive a defense to prevent the occurrence of an accident, such as stopping, etc., even though he could have discovered the accident of the center line of the vehicle at a considerable distance, but did not drive the vehicle to the right, and did not wear a safety belt.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the deceased could have discovered in advance the central line of the vehicle, thereby preventing a collision, and only the description and image of the evidence No. 4, No. 2, and No. 2, the deceased did not fasten the safety belt.