beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,685,283 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 6, 2018 to November 7, 2019.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 8, the driver of the vehicle C Modbing (hereinafter "this case") suffered an injury that requires a stability of about two weeks, such as salt coordinate and tension, on October 6, 2018, by driving a sea-going vehicle in this case at around 09:39, and driving a one-lane of the four-lanes in front of the D-dong D-dong, while changing the two-lane lines into the two-lane, the driver of the vehicle in this case caused an accident to see the left side of the FMoning vehicle of the plaintiff's driver who driven a two-lane due to the negligence that did not see the latter (hereinafter "the accident in this case"). The fact that the accident in this case occurred between the owner of the vehicle in this case and the insurer of the vehicle in this case, and the fact that the plaintiff caused damage to the vehicle in this case and the plaintiff's comprehensive repair insurance contract between the owner of the vehicle in this case.
B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant sea vehicles, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for all damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.
(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “The instant accident did not properly examine the rear side and did not properly examine the change of the instant sea-going vehicle from the driver of the instant sea-going vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s negligence took place, without examining the change of the instant sea-going vehicle in the direction of its proceeding, and such negligence of the Plaintiff also caused the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, so the Defendant’s liability for damages should be limited to 80%.”
However, it is recognized that there was negligence of the Plaintiff, such as the Defendant’s assertion, due to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.