beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,153,310 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 21, 2012 to November 5, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 17:20 on June 20, 2012, B: (a) took back the 5 tons of freight vehicles D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at the parking lot in front of the Gosung-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); (b) neglected the Plaintiff’s duty of follow-up care due to negligence, which caused the Plaintiff’s left loss to be loaded back and left by the Defendant vehicle, and caused the Plaintiff to wear between the rear and the rear parts of the Defendant vehicle, thereby causing the Plaintiff to suffer injury to the Defendant’s pressure pressure, opening-up, and incomplete cutting; (c) loss of the left part of annual installments; (d) chest building on the left part, the left part-hand part of the water-hand part; and (d) the injury of this case caused the instant accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”).
The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 21 (including paper numbers), the fact-finding results for E Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. The limitation of liability, however, according to the evidence as seen earlier, when the Plaintiff was unable to move out of the gravel field, the Plaintiff should tow the towing vehicle safely by such methods as drawing the towing vehicle, and the Plaintiff was also able to see the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle moving out as well, so that the Defendant’s vehicle could safely be towed and that it could have been transmitted to B, and thus, should have been ensured safety by themselves. However, the Plaintiff did not properly inform the Plaintiff of the progress of the Defendant vehicle, along with the Defendant’s vehicle, and did not directly inform the Plaintiff himself/herself of the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle.