beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 12,745,227 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 700,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of the said money, from May 16, 2014 to May 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 16, 2014, at around 23:15, Nonparty C driven D-si (hereinafter “Defendant-owned”) and caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Defendant-owned front-way Hamban et al. on the left-hand side by failing to properly perform the safety driving duty while driving the alleyway that had not been driven by the vehicle from the front side of the king-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul at the port to the left-hand side of the king-do, the C was driving on the left-hand side of the king-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and caused the Plaintiff’s injury, such as the upper left-hand edge, which requires approximately 12 weeks medical treatment.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
Plaintiff
B is the spouse of the plaintiff A, and the defendant is a mutual aid contractor who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, 6, Eul's 3 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.
B. The limitation of liability: (a) the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the evidence mentioned above, the images of Gap 7 through 10, and the purpose of the evidence No. 2 (b) verification of this court's evidence No. 2 (B) verification, are as follows; (b) although the plaintiff A has to conduct a thorough examination as to whether there are vehicles near the intersection by getting on a bicycle, the plaintiff A is negligent in operating the bicycle without turning the headlights at night, and even at night, it is deemed that the plaintiff A has contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages, and thus, the defendant's liability is limited to 90%.
On the other hand, the plaintiff A did not operate the bicycle at the time of the accident of this case, but found the defendant vehicle in advance and waiting to get off the bicycle.