beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 106,407,438 to Plaintiff A, and KRW 2 million to Plaintiff C, D, E, and F, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 11:30 on July 15, 2013, G driven a H 25 ton cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeded along two lanes between the two lanes from the 100m radius from the 100m radius from the eanIC of the Seongbuk-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu to the new harbor at the port at the port of port via the port via the port from the 100m radius from the eanIC. On the other hand, G driven the front side of the Plaintiff’s 1 ton cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) driven at the front side of the Defendant vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
Plaintiff
A has suffered an injury that requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, such as cerebral cerebral ties, due to the accident in this case.
C. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, E, and F are children of Plaintiff A. D.
The defendant is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the defendant vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the accident in this case occurred due to the mistake that G, a driver of the defendant vehicle, neglected the duty of Jeonju and the duty of safe driving. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.
The defendant asserts that there was the negligence of the plaintiff A, since the plaintiff A voluntarily stops without any reason and the accident of this case occurred.
In light of the overall purport of evidence No. 14 and the oral argument, G was investigated into the instant accident, and G did not properly look at the Plaintiff’s vehicle as seen earlier at the location of the accident while working in very rough and difficult situation by the day prior to the accident. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was not considered as the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to a sudden and difficult situation. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was not considered as a starting phenomenon, in light of the above, as Boslin’s unloading and the weather was obstructed at the time, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was deemed to continue to drive under the difficult situation.