beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 9,096,179, KRW 5,730,786, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B, C, and D, respectively; and (b) on August 25, 2014.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a light passenger transport company and E market bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).
(2) On August 25, 2014, F driven the Defendant bus at the speed of 80km/h from the front speed of the cross-city bus terminal on the front side of the Gyeongnam-gun on August 17:5, 2014 and stopped from the front speed to the front speed of the city bus terminal at the speed of 80km/h, and turn to the left at a speed of about 23km/h in accordance with the new subparagraph. At this point, G driven the 1 ton cargo vehicle of H H 1 ton (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) at the front speed of the Defendant bus at the speed of 31 to 3-40km/h, and the left portion of the front side of the Plaintiff bus conflict with the left part of the front side of the Plaintiff bus.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). Based on the stop line at the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict within 37 meters in case of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 6.5 meters in case of the Defendant bus, and the Defendant bus attempted to turn to the left at the center line.
3) G died on September 1, 2014 at around 11:00, with an cardio-ficial color based on a proficial shock shock in accordance with the left and left an open shape of a bridge (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).
4) The F was subject to a disposition of suspicion on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the negligence of violating signal signals or the predictability of the occurrence of accidents on May 29, 2015, with the head of the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office’ Office 830 in 2015.
5) The Plaintiff’s spouse, Plaintiff B, C, and D are the deceased’s children. [Ground of recognition: Facts that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. The Defendant asserts that, after the Deceased’s signal was completely changed, the Defendant entered the intersection in violation of the signal, and that, due to the Plaintiff’s mistake, the instant accident occurred, and thus, should be exempted from liability.