beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 114,970,489, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 174,165,154 and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On September 25, 2019, E: (a) around 15:14, September 25, 2019, E is a five-ton car truck for F in Korea (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
3) On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s H bargaining vehicle’s fright to the right from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) Around 15:37 on the same day, G died at the accident site due to the instant accident.
(3) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle. 4) The Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor paid KRW 151,277,243 to the Plaintiff as a lump sum compensation for survivors’ compensation (i.e., average wage of KRW 116,367.11 x 1,300) and as funeral expenses (13,964,050).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's entries, images, and whole purport of pleadings 1 through 5, 9, 17, 18, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
B. According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant, who is a mutual aid business entity, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident, barring special circumstances.
C. Determination on the limitation of liability 1) The Defendant asserts that there was an error that the deceased did not wear a safety bell. However, on the ground that the deceased suffered from a scarcity scarcity, it cannot be presumed that the deceased did not immediately wear a safety bell, and there is no other evidence to prove that the deceased did not wear a safety bell (or must it be determined by mistake).