beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 376,490,274; KRW 5,00,000; KRW 1,000,000 for Plaintiff C, D, and E; and each of them.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) In fact, F is a passenger car of G Sejong (hereinafter “Defendant”) around 17:00 on August 24, 2012, 2012.
) A driver, while driving his vehicle, driven the two-lanes in front of the “I laundry site” located in H, led to the two-lanes from the salary distance to the Samwon Elementary School. At this point, there is a crosswalk on which no signal, etc. was installed, and therefore, F was negligent in performing his duty of care to reduce speed and safely drive the road, while neglecting his duty of care to safely drive the road, and thereby, F sustained the Plaintiff A, who was going on the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s driving direction, was driven by the front driver of the Defendant’s vehicle and sustained the Plaintiff A’s injury, such as a labbbane, and he was injured (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle, and Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, and E are the children of Plaintiff A.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9 (if there are provisional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s claim for exemption from liability and limitation of liability is that F shall be exempted since F is an inevitable accident since F is an inevitable accident since F is an inevitable accident, since F is driven at the crosswalk at the time of the accident within the limited speed, while F is driven at the crosswalk where the signal, etc. was not installed at the time of the accident.
According to the above evidence, although the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff A was a bicycle riding on the road, the accident site is the straight line, and the accident site is also the straight line, and there is no hindrance in the night at the time of the accident.