beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 6,690,000 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related thereto, from March 28, 2015 to November 3, 2016.
Reasons
Basic Facts
In addition, the argument of the parties, the existence of the defendant's liability for damages, this part of the judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
If the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort that limits the scope of liability for damages, such ground shall be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages of the perpetrator. In determining the percentage of negligence between the perpetrator and the victim, various circumstances related to the occurrence of the accident shall be considered sufficiently in light of the purpose of the system of fair
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da54560 delivered on 28, 1997). In determining the percentage of negligence in this case, the following circumstances should be considered in light of the above acknowledged facts, Gap 2, 9, 10 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, Gap 4 and 8 evidence (including paper numbers), and the purport of Gap 4 and 8 evidence evidence G of the court of first instance, and the testimony and arguments of the witness G of the court of first instance.
The driver of the preceding vehicle shall not make a sudden operation, such as sudden stop or reducing speed (Article 19(4) of the Road Traffic Act). In addition to the left-hand turn of the vehicle, the driver of the preceding vehicle may not make a sudden stop of the vehicle because the vehicle was driven on the vehicle at the vehicle at the location of the accident in which the median of the central line is prohibited. Thus, the driver of the vehicle was found to have been negligent by rapid stop of the vehicle without any justifiable reason. Accordingly, the driver of the preceding vehicle caused the accident in this case by rapid stop of the vehicle to avoid a collision with the Defendant vehicle.
However, it does not seem that the defendant's vehicle was too prompt at the time of the accident, and the vehicle following the defendant's vehicle was stopped at the time.