beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 124,048,885 as well as 5% per annum from April 9, 2012 to September 6, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around April 9, 2012, D, around 11:25, 201, D, one way in front of the road at the entrance of the area of the Yannam-dong, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”).
2) While driving his arms and having driven under a museum’s private distance room on the part of the arm’s length distance room, the Defendant was found to have stopped in front of the moving direction of the Fon-site learning bus at the Fon-Road in front of the Fon-Road in a museum, and the Defendant was at the center line, and was driven by an opposite lane. The Plaintiff was at the end of the place where the said on-site learning bus stops, and was crossing the said road from the right side of the Defendant’s driving direction to the left side. D is not found by neglecting the Plaintiff due to his negligence, and the Plaintiff was at the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as brain ties, a large number of spathal districts and spathal districts, spathal spathals, and spathal spathals on the left side. The approximate developments of the instant accident are as shown in the attached Form Form No. 2. 2) The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 6 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2-1 and 3-1 and 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of recognition and limitation of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
However, the defendant's liability is limited to 85% in consideration of all the circumstances recognized by the aforementioned evidence, since it is deemed that the plaintiff's act of making a stop without permission has contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case.
(15%) 2.2.