beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 395,669,645, and KRW 10,00,000 to the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 3,00,000,00 to the plaintiff C, D, and E, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 3, 2015, at around 11:15, while under the influence of alcohol at KRW 0.053%, F driving a G-free motor vehicle (hereinafter “A-free motor vehicle”) and proceeding a road at one-lane in front of the entrance of the dong village located in the Dong-Eup Eup in Jin-si in Jin-si, Jin-si, by leading to the left-hand turn to the left at the center of the Dong-dong village. On the other hand, the Plaintiff driven the front part of the HVL125 motor vehicle driven by the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and thereby, Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as hVL 125 motor vehicle’s chilling thromaticly, and stroke, caused injury to Plaintiff A.
B. The defendant is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for a sea-going vehicle.
C. Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, and E are the children of Plaintiff A.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 4-1, 3-2, Eul evidence 4-2, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of driving a melting the central line while under the influence of alcohol by F, the defendant, who is the insurer, is obliged to compensate for the property and mental damage caused to the plaintiff A and the mental damage caused to the plaintiff B, C, D, and E due to the above accident.
B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability by taking into account the negligence of Plaintiff A, but according to the above facts, the instant accident occurred while the driver of a sea-going vehicle is under the influence of alcohol and thus it is difficult to deem that the said Plaintiff was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages. Moreover, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to recognize that the said Plaintiff neglected the duty of care at the time of the instant accident.