beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) from July 6, 2010 to Plaintiff A, KRW 98,575,272, and each of them to Plaintiff B and C, respectively.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On July 6, 2010, D 21:50 on July 6, 2010, 2010, D is a motor vehicle E the Emea (hereinafter referred to as “accident vehicle”) from the scule ginseng distance located in the scullet-dong of the window of Changwon-si.
2) On the left side of the road and the left side of the road in front of the driver’s vehicle, when the driver’s delegation of F, who is the owner, drives the vehicle on behalf of the owner, and driving the vehicle at a speed of about 80 km to the speed of about 80 km per hour along a three-lane road in the direction of the Do office of the Do office of the Do office, caused the death of G at around 22:00 on the same day on the left side of the road along the right side of the driver’s vehicle and the right side of the Do office of the Do office of the Do (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) D’s appeal was filed by the Defendant for a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (No. 2010 Gowon District Court Decision 201Da3636) due to the instant accident, and the said judgment became final and conclusive after having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor for one year by the same court 201No981.
3) The Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and the Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s offspring. 4) The Defendant is the insurer who entered into an accident vehicle driver insurance contract with the driver of the accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 11-1-7, Eul evidence 1-1-19 and 22, 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 accident vehicle.
C. The Defendant is negligent in making a U.S., not the U.S. signal, on the part of the Deceased, and even if the Deceased was a U.S. U.S. U.S., the Defendant was negligent in not sufficiently seeing the accident vehicle that was driven on the opposite on the opposite line by obtaining a direct progress signal. In addition, the Deceased’s O.M. had been negligent outside the permissible section of U.S...