beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,274,301 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from April 20, 2014 to February 7, 2018.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On April 20, 2014, C: (a) around 08:40 on April 20, 2014, C is the Defendant vehicle.
) A driving of the Friju station in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Otoba”) and driving the Friju station in front of the Friju station in Dongdaemun-gu (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Obaba”) along the two-lane direction of G private distance, neglecting the right-side criju, thereby changing its course into three-lanes.
2) The Plaintiff, while carrying I in the same direction three-lane, conflicted with the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was tried to avoid the collision between the road and India. In this accident, the Plaintiff conducted an operational treatment, drug treatment, and preserved treatment by suffering from the injury, such as the structural frame of the Alley, the second part of the right part, the second part of the part, the upper part, the part of the 5th part, the 3rd part, the part of the 3rd part of the right part, the 5th part, the new part of the 3rd part, the upper part, the 3rd part of the right part, the 4th part of the 2nd part, the 2nd part, the 2nd part, and the 3rd part of the 2nd part, the 2nd part, and the 3rd part
(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid project operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is a mutual aid project operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement on the instant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the instant accident pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, barring special circumstances.
The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff Orala raised a speed higher than that of the defendant's vehicle without yield the course to the defendant's vehicle. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and rather, it is based on the evidence No. 1 and No. 3.