beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,872,00 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 20, 2017 to July 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Ground of liability 1) The Plaintiff is also the Plaintiff’s Faco towing vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).
) A company that owns and carries on automobile dogs and directorship, etc., and the defendant is a company and B5.4 tons of cargo vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”)
(2) On November 3, 2016, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle received the front part of the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle, even though the crossing was changed to a stop signal immediately before entering the intersection, as shown in the attached Form, when the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, on November 3, 2016, came to turn to the left from the intersection of the private street, such as the signal 17:35, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Hapo-si, and the left part was changed to a stop signal immediately before entering the intersection.
(3) According to the above facts, the Defendant, a mutual aid project operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident. (b) The instant accident limitation point is a private-distance intersection where signal, etc. is installed, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time was reduced to stop at the intersection, and is changed to a straight-line signal (on the part indicated by the road), which is located in the first lane of the straight-line as indicated in the attached drawing, and the instant accident occurred while driving the vehicle at the time. The three passenger vehicles in the attached drawing of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the signal line on the two and three lanes of the straight-line. In addition, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is more likely to see the front side and the front side of the vehicle in front than the three lanes, and even if it was sufficiently possible to view the situation where the Defendant’s vehicle is entering the intersection, and without entering the middle part of the intersection, it did not enter the middle part.