beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 56,03,060, KRW 35,688,70, and KRW 706, respectively, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B and C, on October 4, 2015.
Reasons
B. Around October 14, 2015, 200: (a) discovered and immediately operated H at the latest; (b) caused the death at around 0:19, by shocking the network H with an accident vehicle without being faced with;
(2) The Plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased H, and the Plaintiff B and C are the children of the deceased H. 3) The Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance for the vehicle involved.
4) Although the speed of the instant accident site is 60 km per hour, D was proceeding at a speed of at least 100 km per hour at the time of the accident and caused the instant accident. [The purport of each of the entries and arguments in Gap's facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul's evidence No. 2-1 and Eul's evidence No. 2-6, is as follows.
B. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant is the insurer of the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract for the motor vehicle involved, and is liable to compensate the network H and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident in this case.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. Gender (1) such as the net income 1) the deceased H age * gender: Men’s age * Date of birth * On October 4, 2015: The life expectancy * in 24.88: the maximum working age * until November 21, 2018, which is 60 years of age : the Defendant asserted that the net H’s maximum working age 58 years reach the age 58. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that this court’s fact-finding with respect to the Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. and the entire purport of oral argument were as follows: (a) pursuant to a collective agreement of the Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd., Ltd., the deceased Ha wished to extend retirement age by the age of 60; (b) the deceased H was employed in Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. from May 21, 1984 to the age of 3, 1985; and (c) other specific circumstances such as the network’s age, occupation, and health status are not accepted as the Plaintiff’s retirement age 18.