beta
Text
1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 235,093,729, and KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the said money, the Defendant from September 27, 2016 to September 2018.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Fact 1) C is an express bus D around 18:30 on September 27, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
2) On the other hand, the plaintiff Gap, who was driving the plaintiff Gap and went beyond the above plaintiff while driving the plaintiff Gap and going to the left from the direction of the second degree of the irrigation bridge to the direction of the water bridge at the intersection of the common road No. 44 of the Hancheon-gun National Road No. 44, and driving the plaintiff Gap to the left (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").
2) According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered an injury, such as an external wound, due to the instant accident.
3) Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business operator for the Defendant’s vehicle. 【Ground of recognition’s absence of any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10, and Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) The motion picture of No. 3 and the motion of the entire pleading
B. According to the above findings of recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance.
C. The limitation of liability, however, in full view of the facts revealed by the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff, as well as A, committed an error crossinging the road without carefully examining the vehicle while crossinging the road, and caused such an accident. Therefore, such circumstance should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant. However, since the location of the accident in this case is inevitable for pedestrians to cross the road to rural areas where the crosswalk is not installed, the driver must pay attention to reducing the speed and driving the road on the pedestrian’s attitude, the Defendant’s vehicle did not perform its duty of safety care, such as failing to stop at the stop line prior to entering the intersection.