beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,081,00 as well as 5% per annum from June 30, 2016 to July 22, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Indication of claims: To be as shown in the attached Form;
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited to 70% since the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle and the negligence of the defendant's vehicle conflict between the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle and the negligence of the defendant vehicle that caused the accident in this case.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 2, the plaintiff vehicle tried to turn to the left at the intersection and pursuant to the turn to the left turn at the right turn at the intersection, which is a two-lane left turn, and the plaintiff vehicle is proceeding more than the defendant vehicle (not later than the plaintiff vehicle on the two-lane), but a dump truck was proceeding on the three-lane, a straight line, but at the intersection, a dump truck turneds the direction to turn to the left, and turn to the front left of the plaintiff vehicle at the intersection. The plaintiff vehicle started to turn to the left again after making a balke stop, and at that time, the defendant vehicle was going to turn to the left at the third-lane, a straight line, and the fact that the front wheel part of the plaintiff vehicle was shocked on the left side of the defendant vehicle.
In light of the above circumstances of the accident, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is negligent in neglecting the duty of front-time watch to the plaintiff vehicle, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the plaintiff vehicle fails to operate the direction for left-hand turn, there is a proximate causal relation between such act and the accident in this case, and the defendant's assertion is
3. The plaintiff's winning of the decision