beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 31,224,829 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 30,724,829 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from July 2, 2017 to December 14, 2018 to Plaintiff B.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On July 2, 2017, C: (a) around 02:15, on July 2, 2017, 388-15, a vehicle located within a shooting distance of 388-15, Seo-gu, Daegu (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) The error of driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding 60 km per hour by driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding 99 km to 103 km per hour, shocked D (0.038% of blood alcohol concentration) in which the vehicle on the left side of the vehicle in the course of driving the vehicle, by violating the signal from the right side of the vehicle on the right side and driving the otob (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).
(2) D) On July 2, 2017, 2017, D died in an exposure show.
(D) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. B. The recognition of liability 1) According to the above recognition, the Defendant is liable as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved families.
2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should be exempted from liability since the Deceased driven the otobbb in violation of the signal at night in drinking condition and the instant accident occurred. ① According to the evidence No. 1-1 written by Eul, the fact that C was subject to a disposition of non-guilty charges against the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death) resulting from the instant accident on November 2, 2017. ② However, the burden of proof of exemption is on a person who operates an automobile for his own sake (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da64794, Mar. 26, 2004; 92Da3111, Feb. 9, 1993). Further, the conviction in a criminal trial means that the judge proves the conviction to the extent of excluding a reasonable doubt by evidentiary evidence, while the judgment of non-guilty is not proven by such evidence, it means that the judgment of non-guilty has no meaning of 2005.