beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 68,681,692 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 31, 2016 to March 8, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (i) around 18:00 on January 31, 2016, B: (a) driven by the Defendant’s Cargo C C high-III (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) resulting in an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) leading to the death of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc. at the Cheongju-gu Hospital located in Cheongju-gu G, Cheongju-si, by reducing or temporarily stopping the speed of the said intersection at the port of the Korea Transportation Safety Authority, and by checking the right and the right and the right and the right of the vehicle, and failing to perform his/her duty of care to ensure that the vehicle was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle and driving the vehicle at the port from the right and right of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). (b) around 14:49 on February 14, 2016, at the Cheongju-gu, Cheongju-gu, the treatment of which was conducted at the right and right of the vehicle.
The plaintiff is F's wife, and I, J, K, L, M, N, andO are F's children, and the plaintiff was solely inherited to the above children and was transferred consolation money.
The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the defendant vehicle B.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6 through 9 (including each number in case where there are more than one number), the purport of the whole pleading
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, B neglected to exercise the duty of care to cross-section traffic, resulting in the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer of the said comprehensive insurance contract, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.
C. The above recognition of the limitation of liability and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, namely, the intersection of this case had not been controlled by traffic, and the Road Traffic Act entered the vehicle under the premise that the intersection of this case had not been controlled by traffic. In the case of an intersection where traffic is not controlled, the vehicle that entered the intersection was performing temporary suspension or the duty of traffic flow at the time of entering the intersection.