beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,072,629; (b) KRW 500,000 to Plaintiff A; and (c) each of the said money, from December 5, 2014 to June 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Defendant is a limited company (hereinafter “instant accident vehicle”) between the Defendant and the Gyeongnam-si, which is owned by the said company.
(2) The plaintiff A is a person injured due to the shock of the accident vehicle in this case, and the plaintiff B is the husband of the plaintiff.
B. On December 5, 2014, around 11:20, when driving the instant accident vehicle and driving the instant vehicle, the first road of the FJ in front in Jinju-si, from the Jinju-si to the land-distance flooding area, the occurrence D of the traffic accident caused the Plaintiff A’s injury, such as pressure pressure, etc. by shocking the Plaintiff’s front part of the instant accident vehicle, which was walking in the same direction at the front direction of the instant accident vehicle, by failing to comply with the duty of the front direction of the instant accident vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, 9-1 through 6, 10-1 through 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 10-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Establishment of liability for damages;
A. According to the above fact of recognition that the damage compensation liability occurred, the plaintiff A sustained injury due to the accident in this case caused by D's violation of the duty of front-time watching, and the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage caused by the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the accident in this case.
B. According to the evidence No. 9-4 of the limitation on liability, D is found to have caused the instant accident by neglecting the duty of care to see passengers on the left-hand side of the running direction while driving the instant vehicle, but on the other hand, as the ideology of the damage compensation system, the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, and the location of the instant accident does not have delivery one-lane, Plaintiff A should have paid attention while walking along.