beta
Text
The Defendant’s KRW 84,068,712 to Plaintiff A, KRW 57,545,808 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money from December 17, 2019 to December 202.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) On December 16, 2019, the Defendant is deemed to be the Defendant’s Obane (hereinafter “Defendant Obane”) around 20:41 on December 16, 2019.
) When driving a vehicle and driving the hot spring ginseng distance in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, 236, from the wing-ro to the Seoul Metropolitan Area, the vehicle signal entered the said intersection at a speed of approximately 95 km/h by the speed of about 95 km, while the vehicle signal was changed to the yellow signal from the straight line. E is waiting to the G market at a speed beyond the stop line in order to turn to the left from the side of the Seoul Metropolitan Area, while the vehicle signal was changed to the yellow signal from the straight line, the vehicle signal apparatus came to the left to the left, and the vehicle was found to have turned to the G market, and stopped to the left, and the Defendant did not avoid this change, and the Defendant did not go to the left, and led the Defendant Orabro E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).
(2) Due to the instant accident, E died due to chest damage on the same day.
(hereinafter referred to as “E”. 3) Plaintiff A’s wife, Plaintiff B’s children, and Plaintiff B’s children. 【In the absence of dispute as to the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, 9, and 10, and the fact inquiry results with respect to the malicious Police Station of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.
B. According to the above recognition and scope of liability, the deceased died due to the operation of the defendant Oral Ba, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the operator of Oral Ba, unless there are special circumstances.
C. However, the limitation of liability was anticipated to change the vehicle signal of the deceased’s moving direction to a red signal via yellow signal in a straight line, but in violation of the new subparagraph, the deceased was at fault going beyond the opposite direction and caused the instant accident to turn left, and such error was caused by the deceased’s fault and the expansion of damages.