beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 87,320,387 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 7, 2012 to December 8, 2017.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On December 7, 2012, B: (a) Category C Vehicles around 19:20 on December 7, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).
) During the first apartment parking lot run at the entrance of the apartment parking lot of the Mapo-gu, Hopo-gu, Hopopopo-si, the part of the plaintiff driver's D's driving, who proceeded with the left side of the defendant's vehicle in front of the left side of the defendant's vehicle, was shocked, causing the plaintiff to suffer bodily injury, such as the cryp and the halle of the hale (hereinafter "the accident of this case").
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as an insurer of defendant vehicle.
C. 1) Negligence set-off 1) On the other hand, the Plaintiff, who was proceeding on the side of the Defendant vehicle, was negligent in not paying due attention to the situation of movement of the Defendant vehicle, which appears to have led to the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant accident, and such circumstance also appears to have contributed to 10% of the Plaintiff’s fault ratio. 2) In a case where the damage was caused or expanded due to competition between the harmful act by multiple sub-compacts and the factors on the part of the victim, even though the factors on the part of the victim are irrelevant to the victim’s fault, such as the risk of physical personality or disease, even if the damage in question is irrelevant to the victim’s fault, the court may take into account the factors on the part of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage by applying the legal doctrine of offsetting negligence in setting the amount of compensation for damage, in light of the form and degree of the relevant disease.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1576, Mar. 27, 2008).