beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 37,283,624; (b) KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 1,00,000 to each of the said money, from May 6, 201 to May 201.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) C, at around 16:10 on May 6, 201, caused a traffic accident in which the front part of the Plaintiff A’s Gststuna car, which was directly engaged in according to the traffic signal, was taken back to the left part of the Defendant’s left part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, in the course of driving D 11.5 tons of car trucks (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) to cross-road in the Fast City E in Ansan.
(2) The plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as the cage of cages cages, the left-hand slots, etc., due to the accident of this case.
(3) The plaintiff B is the denial of the plaintiff A, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a truck mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. The Defendant asserts that there was negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, who did not safely drive the vehicle in the vicinity of the intersection, such as taking the dynamics of the vehicle in the vicinity of the intersection, driving slowly, etc., and did not wear the safety bell.
As seen earlier, the accident of this case occurred by Defendant A’s vehicle at red ray, and after the signal was changed to Plaintiff A, it is difficult to deem that Plaintiff A had a duty of care to take measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da43536, Jan. 23, 1998) and it is difficult to deem that Plaintiff A had a duty of care to take measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident since other vehicles are anticipated to enter the intersection by going against the signal and proceed to the speed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da43536, Jan. 23, 1998). The Defendant
2. The scope of liability for damages is below.