beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 4,00,000 for Plaintiff A, and KRW 2,00,000 for Plaintiff B and C, respectively, and each of the above KRW 876,305,713.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) E is a F vehicle on July 1, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”);
(B) A driving the vehicle, while driving the vehicle, and driving the vehicle in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, the body of the air exhaustr, or the three-lanes of the 3rd line with the discharge screen section, the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked to the front part of the vehicle, and the vehicle was transferred to the front part of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
2) The Plaintiff, who was on the back of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, was suffering from scarcitys, scarcitys, water, and other damages.
3) Plaintiff B’s father, Plaintiff C’s mother, and Plaintiff D’s words of Plaintiff A. 34 are mutual aid operators who have concluded a mutual aid agreement with respect to Defendant vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, entry of Plaintiff A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case. 2) The defendant asserts that the defendant is not liable for damages because the defendant, including the plaintiff and E, jointly leased the defendant vehicle and entered the operating route to travel together with a usual pent, and the accident in this case occurred while the defendant's vehicle rent was also borne by the defendant, the plaintiff is in the status of the operator, and therefore the defendant is not "other person" under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the defendant is not liable for damages.
The facts that the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the E, and the G agreed to travel together with a usual route and agreed on the route of operation, and the plaintiff and the E leased the defendant's vehicle as the lessee, while there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the E, but with respect to whether the plaintiff can be viewed as a joint lessee of the defendant's vehicle, it is insufficient to recognize them only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and it is otherwise recognized.