20 Gaz. 5086794 Damages (i.e., losses)

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Plaintiff 2 and 3 are minors, so the legal representative mother A

[Judgment of the court below]

D Federations

Law Firm Dongsung et al.

Attorney Cho Young-kon

October 14, 2020

November 11, 2020

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 316,050,498 won, the amount of 205,366,998 won, each of which shall be 5% per annum from December 30, 2019 to the date the judgment is rendered, and 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant DF is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to buses owned by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicles”).

B. Around 21:50 on December 30, 2019, F driven the Defendant vehicle and proceeded with the J on the right side of the Defendant vehicle at the end of the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) by discovering the J rapidly going from the right side to the air bus room of the I Hospital in accordance with two lanes in front of the H association in Ansan-si G, one of the two-lanes in front of the H association in Ansan-si.

C. On January 23, 2020, J died at K Hospital due to 08:52 injury to external wounds on January 23, 2020. The Plaintiffs jointly inherited the deceased as their wife and children.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-6, Gap 20-22, Eul 1-2, the whole or part of the images (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Existence of liability for damages

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) The plaintiffs: F is negligent in violating the duty of ex officio care without sufficiently examining the movement of pedestrians in the absence of any visual disability at the time of the accident, and the ratio of negligence should be deemed to exceed 60%.

(2) Defendant: The Deceased, who was in India while normally operating a green signal, could not be anticipated or avoided to F due to an accident that occurred by the Deceased, coming into the lane on his own. F did not have any negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident.

(b)review;

In the occurrence of a traffic accident, where it is reasonable to believe that the abnormal behavior such as traffic offense by a victim or a third party is not performed in light of the overall circumstances at the time when the abnormal behavior such as such behavior is opened, the responsibility of the operator, the public, or the driver of the vehicle for the reason that there is no traffic offense causing the accident on the part of the perpetrator is denied unless there is a traffic offense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12068, Sept. 5, 200). However, the application of the principle of trust is excluded in special circumstances where it is impossible for the other party traffic controller to observe the road traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes to believe that the operation of the vehicle or the walking of the vehicle is difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da3607, 3614, Apr. 11, 2003).

However, the facts and the evidence mentioned above, and the overall purport of the oral argument, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident was working normally at the speed of 31 to 40 kilometers per hour (at the time of the accident, it seems that there is no bus passenger who was injured). ② Although F was immediately viewed the Deceased immediately before the accident, it seems difficult for the Deceased to anticipate a sudden act to go to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle in India at the time of the accident. ③ The Deceased entered the vehicle rapidly on the roadway before the occurrence of the accident, and F was found to have been aware of the Deceased’s accident at the time of the accident, and it appears that it was physically impossible to avoid the accident at the time of the accident, in light of the fact that it was difficult to view that there was no specific negligence on the part of the Deceased at the time of the accident, such as the Plaintiff’s driver at the time of the accident.

On a different premise, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant: All dismissal.

Judges Dominsung