beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 115,621,725 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 19, 2017 to October 31, 2017; and (b) for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 19:20 on November 19, 2016, A driven the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s insured vehicle”) with two-lanes in front of the entrance of the Cheongju-si 2088 Kan apartment complex in the middle of the entrance of the Cheongju-si, the front part of the C Driving, an insured vehicle, which was the Defendant’s insured vehicle, driven at three-lanes in the same direction due to the negligence before and after the passage, without properly considering the traffic situation at the front and after the left (less no signal, etc. is installed), was driven by the lower part of the front part of the C Driving, which was the Defendant’s insured vehicle, driving along three-lanes in the same direction (hereinafter “Defendant’s Obaba”), and accordingly, the D, which was on the back part of the said Obabba, died due to the cardio-obabbabba, death of the cardio-obababababbbbba.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”. (b)
By January 18, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the bereaved family members of D, who died of the instant accident, KRW 330,347,770 in total, and KRW 320,00,00 in the agreed amount, and KRW 49,552,160 in the agreed amount. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 49,552,160 in proportion to the Defendant’s fault ratio recognized by the Defendant.
C. Meanwhile, on June 1, 2017, in the case of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death) by Cheongju District Court Decision 2016Kadan2813 (Death, etc.), A was sentenced to a fine of KRW 8 million on the grounds of criminal facts that “the instant accident site is a place where signal, etc. is not installed, and thus, a person engaged in the vehicle driving business, who is in charge of the vehicle driving business, verified the safety of the course of the Defendant by living well at the right and the right and the right before the right and caused the instant accident by negligence by neglecting his/her duty of care to make a right and caused the instant
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, video, purport of whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s accident of this case is an error in violation of C’s duty of care on the front bank, and Defendant Oral Seaba.