logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2017.11.21 2017가단51547
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The Defendant: 150,709,452 won to Plaintiff A; 157,139,635 won to Plaintiff B; 7,000,000 won to Plaintiff C and D; and Plaintiff E.

Reasons

G is a person who is engaged in driving of H truck (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). On September 26, 2016, G: (a) driven the said vehicle on September 26, 2016, and led a city bus parked in the gold-ri bus stops in the same direction as it violated the duty of care to drive safely while driving the road in front of the gold-ri bus stops located in the 50-11 Simpon-ro, Y-dong, Y-dong, Y-dong, Simpo-dong, Chungcheongnam-nam, Chungcheongnam-do, 29-11, in the direction of the mountain.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident caused the network I on the top of the steering force of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “the deceased”) to die on September 27, 2016, when he/she was sent to the Ganyang University Hospital and was receiving medical treatment immediately after the instant accident, after having been suffering from an open frame complex which is not on both sides.

Plaintiff

A is the deceased’s spouse. The deceased’s children, the Plaintiff C, and D are the deceased’s parents, the Plaintiff E, and the F are the births of the deceased.

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement for the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including a branch number), and according to the fact that the purport of the whole pleading is recognized, the defendant is liable as a mutual aid business operator of the vehicle of this case for damages suffered by the deceased and his family members due to the accident of this case.

The judgment on the Defendant’s claim of limitation on liability occurred while the deceased was on duty by being on board the top of the operation of the instant vehicle. The deceased was responsible for the Defendant because the deceased’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages caused by the accident, such as where the bus stops on the front side of the instant vehicle, in a situation where it is probable that an accident may occur, such as the passenger, who was on board the seat of the instant vehicle, but failed to fulfill his/her duty to attract the driver’s attention, and failure to wear the safety belt.

arrow