beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,772,610 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 20,635,493 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from September 3, 2018 to each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On September 3, 2018, D driving the E Freight (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) around 14:30 on September 3, 2018, D changed the lane from the F apartment direction to the one lane between the three-lanes in the direction of the F apartment, while moving the two-lanes into the two-lanes, D used the two-lanes on the left side of the Plaintiff Company B’s Hrocketing or other car (hereinafter “Plaintiff Vehicle”) driving on the front part of the Defendant Vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). A while driving the Plaintiff Company on the front part of the Defendant Vehicle, caused the Plaintiff’s injury of salt, etc. due to the instant accident, and A suffered the Plaintiff’s injury of salt, etc., including the Plaintiff’s injury.
3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant vehicle.
【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings (including the investigation records sent by the Daejeon District Branch Office)
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case, unless there are special circumstances, since the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant's vehicle.
(c)
The judgment on the defendant's claim on the limitation of liability has been negligent in the accident of this case to the plaintiff B, who followed the defendant's vehicle, since the defendant's vehicle operated the direction to the right side when intending to change the lane into the two lanes, and there was negligence in failing to wear the safety level mark.
However, there is not sufficient evidence to support the defendant's assertion (in light of the level of drug on the accident site stated in Gap evidence No. 1-1 and the damaged parts of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle, when the vehicle changes the lane, the plaintiff's vehicle was prior to the two lanes.