beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,457,421 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from January 13, 2013 to January 9, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) B driven a vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 22:55 on January 13, 2013, and driven a three-lane road in front of Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City along the two-lanes into the direction of a sloping belt, the said road was shocked by the Plaintiff who was crossing the said road to the port from the right side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle, and thereby, the Plaintiff was sustained an injury, such as brain-dead, etc.
(2) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers if there is a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
C. However, according to the evidence above, the plaintiff was negligent in crossing the road of three-lanes of the crosswalks at night from the right side of the defendant vehicle to the port when the pedestrian signal is red, and such negligence of the plaintiff was caused by the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damage.
Therefore, the defendant's liability is limited to 45% in consideration of the ratio of damages to be paid by the defendant.
Although the evidence of this case is not clear as to whether the location of the accident of this case is inside the crosswalk, the direction of the plaintiff's crossing is left from the right side of the standard side of the defendant's vehicle, in light of the location of the plaintiff being shocked, the shock side of the defendant's vehicle, and the lusheal shape, etc., it is reasonable to view that the location of the accident of this case, like the above recognized facts, is inside the crosswalk, is close to it, and that the plaintiff's direction was left side of the right side.
The plaintiff is now after the change in the signal signal of the crosswalk or after the change in the signal.