beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,611,792 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from May 6, 2013 to January 26, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a future car transportation company and B towing vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
(2) On May 6, 2013, C driving the Defendant vehicle at around 13:10 on May 6, 2013, and driving the tin-sports park at a speed of 60km/h of the restricted speed of the tin-sports park located in the Manyang-si, Annyang-si at a speed of 41:50km/h of the speed from Annyang-si to Seoul, while driving the tin-sports park at a speed of 41:50km from Annyang-si to Annyang-si, in violation of the signal to turn to the left and driving ahead of the median line, while driving the vehicle at a speed of 41:50km and passing ahead of the median line, in line with the pedestrian signal to the port from the right direction of the course of the course of the course of the course of the course of the course, and received the Plaintiff,
(3) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered an upper part of the body, such as a pelke, the upper part of the upper part of the left pelke, the upper part of the upper left pelke, and the upper part of the upper part of the 5th left pelke, etc. [The ground for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 3, 4, 14, and the purport of the entire pleadings
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator.
C. The Plaintiff asserts that it is an accident within the crosswalk, but at the time of police mobilization, the Plaintiff was used at a point that is less than 2 meters away from the inside of the crosswalk (No. 14-2 of the evidence No. 14 of the same Act) at the time of the police dispatch, and the Plaintiff’s liability is limited to 90% since it was found that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to fully perform his/her duty of care, such as making it difficult to proceed in an unreasonable manner in light of the above circumstances of the accident, but it was found that the Plaintiff failed to observe the crosswalk and driving the road on the road.
(10% of the plaintiff's fault ratio) 2. The scope of liability for damages is the same as each corresponding item of the attached Table of calculation of damages, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be the monthly unit.