Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 17,058,194, and each of the said amounts, respectively, KRW 36,587,291; and (b) against Plaintiff B, C, and D.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 12:10 on May 14, 2015, E means the G Poter Cargo (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) in front of the warehouse located in an orchard located in the Asia-si F, Asan-si (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).
In this case, H and I had a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of and in front of the right side and the left side of each of the Defendant vehicle in order to help the vehicle behind and back of about 30cm. In this case, H and I had a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle.
(3) At around 13:15 on the same day, the instant death incident was caused by the pressure of the heart due to the pressure of cage at cage at 13:15 (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).
In regard to this, the defendant alleged that there is no causal relation with the accident of this case since the death of the deceased was caused by the hearts after the accident of this case. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion on the basis of the entries or videos of the evidence Nos. 2, 9-4, 1-3 through 9, 1-3 through 4, 5, and 4 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above evidence alone is insufficient to determine the above recognition.
In light of the above legal principles, the accident of this case is generally known.