beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 2,00,000 and each of the said money to the Plaintiff B, C, D, and E, respectively, on July 5, 201.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On July 5, 201, at KRW 06:50, G 4.5 tons (hereinafter the Defendant’s vehicle) driving the Defendant’s 4.5 tons truck, and driving the road in front of the office in the front of the front of the office in the front of the Pongbuk-gun Office located in the west-gun of Chungcheongnam-gun, a two-lane, one-lane, one of the two-lanes, and the Plaintiff A, while overtaking the front by driving the Defendant’s 49C Oraba (hereinafter the Plaintiff’s vehicle), was negligent in driving the Defendant’s vehicle on a one-lane and passing the front by driving the Defendant’s 49C Maba (hereinafter the Plaintiff’s vehicle), without making any changes in the two-lane, and caused the Plaintiff A to suffer injury on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, such as brain.
(hereinafter referred to as "the accident in this case"). The plaintiff B, C, D, and E are children of the plaintiff A, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the defendant's vehicle.
【Ground of recognition】 The facts without any dispute, Gap 2, 3, Gap 4-1, 2, 5-1 through 7, Gap 12-6 through 16, Eul 7-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.
C. However, according to each of the above evidence, the plaintiff's negligence was caused by the plaintiff's act of driving in accordance with the first way that he should not wear a safety mother, without putting the front side, and such negligence of the plaintiff Gap is deemed to have caused the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages. Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for, it is reasonable to consider it, but it is reasonable to deem that the ratio is 20% in light of the above facts. Thus, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 80%. 2) The defendant alleged that there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff who did not wear a safety mother to Gap, but according to Gap's evidence 4-1, the plaintiff Gap worn a safety mother at the time of the accident of this case.