beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) 24,457,412 won to Plaintiff A; (b) 500,000 won to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them on July 24, 2012.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (i) The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) around 10:44 on July 23, 2012, D driving a taxi for business use; (b) driving the front passage of the two practical subway stations located in the Seogdong-gu Busan Metropolitan City along the two-lanes from the boundary of the Gu Seogdong-dong-dong to the Gu Seogdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). The Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff C are the parents of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded a mutual aid agreement with respect to the said E-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant taxi”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant, who is the mutual aid business entity of defendant taxi, is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
C. The limitation of liability: (a) comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in Evidence Nos. 2-1 and evidence Nos. 2-4 and 5, Defendant taxi discovered a vehicle parked in front of the exit of the second subway station No. 5, and changed the lane while proceeding along the three-lanes of the instant road; and (b) the instant accident occurred while trying to enter the two-lane again, and the Plaintiff Company was proceeding three-lanes following Defendant taxi prior to the instant accident. Thus, the said Plaintiff also displayed a three-lane change or stop vehicle following Defendant taxi prior to the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff was also obliged to pay due attention to the existence and operation of another vehicle. However, the Plaintiff failed to comply with this, and the instant accident occurred and the instant accident occurred.