beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,194,895 and the said money to the Plaintiff are 5% per annum from May 11, 2012 to November 25, 2016.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) B are the city bus C around 07:30 on May 11, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
2) The Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle and driving a two-lane road in front of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, is driving about about 10km from the direction of the facility for recovery of natural resources to the middle school at the speed of about 10 kilometers per hour, was coming from the two-lanes of the same road, and was driving the vehicle to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle without permission at the speed of the same road, and was rapidly driven by the Plaintiff while operating the vehicle to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle to avoid this, but the Defendant was not faced with the left side side of the bus and the rear right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and caused the Plaintiff to suffer the Plaintiff’s left side side part of the Plaintiff’s bus with approximately 16 weeks of treatment (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 6 evidence, Eul 1 through 3, and video (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant is exempted from liability in light of the fact that the driver B of the defendant vehicle driven at a speed of 10 km per hour, and the driver B could not discover the plaintiff, and that there was no gap in taking the brake measures between the shocking time after discovering the plaintiff who crossed the vehicle without permission and then the shocking time.
However, according to the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff is at the two-lanes of the road at the location of the accident in this case at the time B’s right to the intersection immediately before the accident in this case.