beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) from August 2, 2014, for Plaintiff A, KRW 206,827,659; and (b) KRW 201,90,609; and (c) for each said money.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) C, around 15:07 on August 2, 2014, operated D E-carc buses and proceeded two-lanes in the front section of the printing or line in the direction of the C-car in the direction of the C-car in the front section of the B-ro, the two-lanes of the printing or line in the direction of the C-car. At the time, the road was milched, and there was a yellow-ray central line, and there was a place where the yellow-ray was installed, the driver of the motor vehicle is obliged to reduce the speed and safely drive the bus and prevent the accident in advance. However, even if the driver of the motor vehicle was negligent in performing the above duty of care, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to reduce the speed and safely drive the bus and to prevent the accident in advance, the driver of the motor vehicle is at the front section of the E-car driver’s vehicle in the front section of the bus in the direction of the progress.
A) Around 21:25 on the same day, the Plaintiff died from brain pressure in the emergency room of the Jeonnam University Hospital. (2) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the said bus.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 17 evidence, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the deceased and his bereaved family members as a mutual aid business operator.
C. Limit of liability, however, there is negligence on the deceased who did not wear a safety bell, and such negligence appears to have caused the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, so the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 95%.
2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item in the separate list of damages calculation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, in principle, but shall be calculated on a monthly basis.