beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 347,231,290 as well as 5% per annum from March 31, 2015 to January 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The recognition of B, on March 31, 2015, driven a freight vehicle of five tons by CRano, a stock company, and driven a four-lane between four-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes at a point below the sub-section 363.9km, which is located in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section in the sub-section, and the previous part of the E-vehicle in the front direction of the said cargo. As a result, the said cargo vehicle was pushed the upper part into one-lane in the upper part, and stopped over one-lane and two-lanes.
F Around 05:13 on March 31, 2015, when driving a G body-man taxi and driving a single lane on the said road, the F was shocked by the left side of the said cargo vehicle parked on the front side of the said taxi (hereinafter “instant accident”), and accordingly, H, a passenger on the front line of the said taxi, died with blood transfusion in the mouth.
The plaintiff is the mother of the network H (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the above taxi driven by F, and the defendant's intervenor is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the above cargo vehicle driven by B.
[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts found as above, as F is causing the instant accident while driving the said taxi and resulting in the death of the Deceased who is a taxi passenger, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Deceased and the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.
C. The defendant asserts that the responsibility of the defendant should be limited in consideration of the error that did not fasten the safety belt to the deceased at the time of the accident of this case. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the deceased did not fasten the safety belt at the time of the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is accepted.