beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,914,620 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 19, 2016 to November 16, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 17:10 on September 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) driven a non-registered private cartoo; (b) driven a one-lane road in front of the F cafeteria, which is located in the Iron-gun, Gangwon-do, in the G principal road from the G principal of the G principal road to the H principal of the H principal road; and (c) driven the center line along the opposite side of the K principal of the I driver’s J principal, J. J. Haba, who driven the said vehicle, and got the front left-hand part of the said vehicle that he/she driven, and caused the I to suffer injury, such as the decline of the light.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
The Plaintiff, as an insurer which entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the K-U.K. owned by I, was an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for the motor vehicle covered by the non-insurance motor vehicle. By March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff paid to I insurance proceeds of KRW 13,029,220 (excluding the amount refunded) and KRW 46,000 [the amount of loss caused by business suspension, KRW 36,212,426, KRW 31,360, KRW 311,360, KRW 1,600, KRW 200, KRW 1,600, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 1,280,000, KRW 29,500, KRW 600, KRW 600, which is an insurer which entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for the motor vehicle without insurance in the possession of I.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 16, Gap evidence 17-1 through 20, Gap evidence 18-1, 2, and Gap evidence 19-29, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts found above, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by I due to his negligence as a person who caused the accident of this case.
B. The Defendant asserts that I did not wear a fitness at the time of the instant accident, and that I should limit its liability because he did not check the Defendant’s vehicle and did not reduce the speed. However, in light of the descriptions of evidence No. 17-2 through No. 10, 17, 18, and evidence No. 21, the Defendant submitted.