beta
Text
1. The defendant shall grant the plaintiff A KRW 81,268,130, and the plaintiff B and C each of KRW 47,512,087 and each of them from July 24, 2019.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
E Around 13:38 on July 24, 2019, while driving a Fbub Sheet Cargo (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving at the speed of about 40-50 KK at the speed of the Sincheon-si from the direction of the down-to-date distance to the long-distance discharge distance, E received the front-hand part of the part above the left-hand part of the Robb 2 truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) driving the network H (hereinafter “the network”) driving, which driven on the left-hand side due to the stroke-down’s negligence, driving on the left-hand side in the opposite direction.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Deceased died on the same day of the instant accident, around 14:20, on the same day.
The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the defendant, and the plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, the plaintiff B, and C as their children.
[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 15 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact that the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased and the deceased, due to the accident in this case, unless there are special circumstances, since the deceased died due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.
The defendant's claim on the limitation of liability seems to have shocked the front part of the plaintiff's vehicle in front of the right corner of the defendant's vehicle according to the field photograph of the accident of this case. Thus, if the deceased was able to have known in advance the central crime of the defendant's vehicle, he would have been able to prevent the accident or to mitigate damage if he operated the steering gear in the opposite direction of the central line at the time, and at the time, the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of the negligence that the deceased did not wear the safety bell.