beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,855,434 as well as 5% per annum from June 11, 2008 to February 12, 2015, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On June 11, 2008, the plaintiff suffered from the accident that the plaintiff's vehicle was driven by the plaintiff's D driver's D (hereinafter "the defendant's vehicle") that was driven by the plaintiff's vehicle while driving a road near the Han River tunnel in the Nam-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu, Seog-gu, Seogdong-gu, Seog-gu, U.S. at the port of port on the port side (hereinafter "the plaintiff's vehicle"). The plaintiff suffered from the accident that the plaintiff's vehicle was driven by the plaintiff's vehicle while driving the plaintiff's B driver's vehicle ("the plaintiff's vehicle") was driven by the plaintiff's vehicle in the wind leading the plaintiff's vehicle to the road above the side rail of the road (hereinafter "the accident in this case"). Accordingly, the 5-number of units, the 5-number of units open zone of water, the small-scale small-scale river of the left side side, the upper side string, and the right side side rup.
B) The Defendant is the insurer of the Defendant’s automobile comprehensive insurance (based on recognition). According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, according to the following: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12-1, 2, and 3; and (b) the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. Whether the liability is limited or not, the Defendant asserts that “The Plaintiff, at the time of the instant accident, was trying to drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle beyond the limited speed without wearing the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident, and intending to walk the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the future of the Defendant’s own Defendant’s vehicle in the course of operating the hand rapidly to avoid collision, and thus, the Plaintiff’s negligence, which caused the occurrence and expansion of the damages caused by the instant accident, should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages.” However, the Plaintiff failed to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident.
In regard to the fact that the defendant's vehicle intended to enter the plaintiff's own vehicle in the future, it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the descriptions of No. 1, 2, 2-10, 11 of No. 1, 2-2, and 11.