beta
Text
1. The Defendant: 102,621,876 won to Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from June 17, 2013 to January 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) around 20:35 on June 17, 2013, C driving a D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving a one-lane road in front of the vice-dong 191 Parisbrate, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, in front of the 191 Paris U.S., in front of the vice-dong 191, and carried out an illegal internship beyond the median line, while driving it on the part of the Defendant vehicle, and driving it on the left side of the Defendant vehicle in the same lane, the front part of the Plaintiff’s E Ethtob in front of the Defendant vehicle, which was going to the left side of the Defendant vehicle, was shocked with the front part of the Defendant vehicle. As a result, Plaintiff A suffered from an injury, such as blood transfusion, etc., of external wound.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) Plaintiff B is the mother of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 13, Eul evidence 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff A due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. (1) According to the evidence of this case, the following can be acknowledged: (a) the road where the instant accident occurred is one-lane road; and (b) the Plaintiff’s Otobane was proceeding behind the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the occurrence of the accident.
On the other hand, the above road is 6.3 meters wide, and the vehicle of the defendant immediately before the accident is proceeding close to the side in order to secure the turning-way for illegal U-turn, and a sufficient space has been created to pass by another vehicle with the left left space. On the other hand, the vehicle could have been thought to yield the course to the vehicle following the vehicle on the side on the ground that the defendant vehicle parked on the side or walk on the side on the side. On the other hand, immediately before the accident, the vehicle of the defendant A and the defendant vehicle are proceeding almost far.