beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 264,491,696 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 21, 2011 to July 21, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) B around 13:30 on July 21, 2011, 201: (a) C New Projection XG Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”)
) A driver, while driving his vehicle and driving his vehicle, scood the 111.3km of the upstream line on the expressway from the right side to the right side of the Defendant vehicle while driving along one lane from the right side of the two-lanes from the right side of the road in order to turn off to the right side and going off to the right side, and the latter part of the DNA Ecoos vehicle stopped on the right side of the direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Plaintiff, who was on the top of the steering force of Defendant vehicle due to the instant accident, was injured by the injury of the Plaintiff, such as cerebral cerebral cerebral Bribery, and Haban.
3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including all household cards with serial numbers), the purport
B. According to the above recognition and scope of liability, the Plaintiff was injured due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. According to the evidence Nos. 9-4 of Gap's liability limitation 1) it is acknowledged that Eul returned to a net window and returned home, and the plaintiff was faced with the accident of this case while he moved to the defendant's vehicle in Gyeonggi-do. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant's liability is limited to 85% in consideration of the plaintiff's moving to the defendant's vehicle. Furthermore, the defendant's liability should be limited to the defendant's 85% inasmuch as the plaintiff violated his duty to urge the driver of the defendant's vehicle to ensure safe operation and did not wear the safety mark.