beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 89,060,508 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 47,707,005 to Defendant B and C, respectively; and (c) from December 29, 2015 to December 2017.
Reasons
D(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") is the spouse or father of the plaintiffs, and around December 29, 2015, around 17:40 on December 29, 2015, he was driving by making a left turn to the left in accordance with the normal signals of the Eggal-distance Intersection near Sejong-dong, Geocheon-si, the G(hereinafter referred to as "the deceased").
However, the G 29 passenger buses driven by the F from the above point of view, with the negligence of the G 29 passenger buses in violation of the signal and in the direction of Sacheon-si toward the guest village of the Jacheon-gun at about 90km in speed, received the part of the gallon's driver's fals of the deceased with the gallon's fallon's fal
Accordingly, the Deceased died due to 18:53 on the same day from the Gyeong University Hospital due to ductal aggregate.
(A) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff B, C, H, and I are the married children of the deceased, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the bus driven by F.
Non-party H and I made a civil agreement with the defendant around February 2016 at KRW 30,581,540, respectively.
[Grounds for recognition] According to the fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 9 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings, according to the facts acknowledged as above, F has caused the death of the deceased by the negligence of suspending buses and neglecting the duty of care to drive buses safely in accordance with the intersection where signal apparatus is installed, and by neglecting the duty of care to drive buses safely. The defendant is liable as a mutual-aid businessman for the damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.
The defendant asserts that there was an error that the deceased did not fasten the safety belt at the time of the instant accident.
However, according to the statements and images of Gap evidence No. 9, the deceased appears to have been fastened with safety belts, and there is no evidence to view that the damage was expanded due to any negligence of the deceased.