beta
Text
1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 112,295,374, and KRW 5,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money from August 13, 2013 to August 2017.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 21:24 August 13, 2013, C is a three-lane adjacent to the Dongbsular road located in the Dongbsdong in the Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). C is a DNA car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) A driving along a vehicle to the from a sloping distance, while proceeding to the sloping distance, led to a rounding to an insular speed in the direction of military circulation. At that time, there was a crosswalk at night, and in such a case, there was a duty of care to check whether a person engaged in driving service temporarily stops or slowly drives and is a pedestrian and to prevent an accident in advance. Nevertheless, C neglected to do so, due to the negligence of neglecting it, caused the Plaintiff to go beyond the floor by receiving the Plaintiff from the Defendant as the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle in line with the crosswalk. C suffered from the Plaintiff’s negligence in the course of performing the duty of care, such as “the instant traffic accident” (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).
2) The main reason of the instant accident is as follows: (a) Plaintiff B is the husband of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 5 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the fact of recognition and limitation of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
However, according to the grounds of recognition as seen earlier, the instant accident took place by the Plaintiff A, who was standing a crosswalk where pedestrian signal, etc. is not installed, and Plaintiff A, who was standing a crosswalk where pedestrian signal, etc. is not installed, also examined the flow of the vehicle.