beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,200,815 as well as 5% per annum from January 7, 2016 to September 3, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On January 7, 2016, C: (a) A vehicle D around January 11:15, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(B) The front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle while stopping at the front bus bus stops in front of the Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and changing his course to the left side, was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the laverization of the right-side laver, the groundless laversing and heart heat, the 5th century - the escape of the 1,000 conical signboards, and the 1,000 laverg’s disease, etc.
3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle. 【Ground for recognition's absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul's evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings)
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.
C. The limitation of liability is limited: (a) the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, should drive a vehicle by driving or operating the vehicle in a manner that leads to a change of the vehicle in the front line; (b) in the event of a change of the vehicle in the front line, the Defendant’s vehicle was found to change the vehicle; and (c) the Plaintiff’s error contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of the damage; (d) the Defendant’s calculation of the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate for this point was limited; (b) the view of the vehicle in the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle was limited by the vehicle in the front line of the vehicle at the time of the instant accident; and (c) the passage between the Defendant’s vehicle and the said vehicle in the front line.