beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,80,183 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 9, 2015 to July 23, 2020.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On June 9, 2015, C: (a) around D 22:05, on June 9, 2015, C is a vehicle for the passenger of Drade Broke (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
ii)A vehicle for the E driver’s use of a F Balna vehicle for E driver’s use (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) which has stopped across one lane or two lanes in the direction of the proceeding while driving two lanes near the king (hereinafter referred to as “the two-lanes”).
) The part on the right side of the Defendant’s front part was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Plaintiff, who was on the top of the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, sustained the injury to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, such as divers and gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale gale lele gale gale lele gale, with no two open lele lele lelele gale lele gale le
3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 12, 14, Eul's evidence No. 2
B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. The judgment on the claim of limitation of liability is based on the following: while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving at the speed of 84km per hour at the speed of 84km immediately before the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was faced with the front part of the bus and the retaining wall of the new sloping rail (hereinafter “the front accident”) at the speed of 10km, and the instant accident was stopped across the two-lanes at the location of the instant accident. The Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the front line, was at the speed of 84km.