beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 18,740,947 for Plaintiff A, KRW 6,482,023 for Plaintiff B, and KRW 500,00 for Plaintiff C, D, and E, respectively.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The ground for responsibility 1) Plaintiff A is a G-car driven by F, a workplace partner, for night duty at around 17:40 on December 11, 2007, while serving as a police officer at the Seocho Police Station, and at around 17:40 on December 11, 2007 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(B) The vehicle was driven by H to the rear part of the I vehicle driven by H, which was driven by the front part of the said vehicle as the front part of the vehicle, while driving in the front section of the vehicle at the Seocho-si as soon as possible (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract regarding the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract.
3) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are the children of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff E is the mother of Plaintiff A. According to the fact of recognition of responsibility, the Defendant is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident. (c) However, in light of all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the purpose of operation of the Defendant vehicle, the relationship between Plaintiff A and the driver, and the background leading up to the Plaintiff’s transfer of the Defendant vehicle to the Defendant, it would be reasonable to adjust the Defendant’s liability to a certain extent in accordance with the good faith and the principle of equity, and thus, such circumstances should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate for.
Therefore, the defendant's scope of responsibility is limited to 90%.
2. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff A did not perform his duty to urge the driver to drive safely, the defendant's responsibility should be more limited. Thus, even if he left the vehicle without compensation, such fact alone cannot be said to have a duty of care to urge the driver to operate safely, and the driver is remarkably under climatic driving.
The risk of the accident is likely to be serious due to the occurrence of the accident and other reasons.