beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 91,487,589 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 28, 2011 to June 26, 2015.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (i) around 10:47 August 28, 201, 201, B driving a car of the C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) owned by Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Co., Ltd.”) and driving a car of the C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on a two-lane road located in Young-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, the Seoul metropolitan direction of the 96.4km of the Honam Highway (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) was turned back to the Defendant vehicle, and eventually, the vehicle was turned back to the Defendant vehicle due to the collision of the D car that was followed by the vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). The instant accident suffered injury, such as the Plaintiff’s plehion 12 plehion and plehion 11 plehion plehion, a crym crym crym crym fry, and abram pleh, etc.
Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of Si/Gun shall be the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of Si/Gun shall be the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of Si/Gun shall be the head of the Si
In the meantime, the defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the non-party company and the defendant.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings]
B. According to the facts of recognition of the above facts of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of defendant vehicle.
C. (i) Limit of liability: Provided, however, in light of all the circumstances, including the purpose of the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle as seen earlier, the personal relationship with the passenger, and the background of the movement, it is reasonable to reduce the amount of liability for the non-party company, the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle, as it is deemed very unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith and equity. As such, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% by taking account of such circumstances.