beta
Text
The Defendants jointly and severally share 49,391,525 won to Plaintiff A, 45,891,525 won to Plaintiff B, and 5,000,000 won to Plaintiff C.
Reasons
Defendant D, on November 24, 2015, driven a 03:35 SM5 vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant E”), and found the road located in F in Jinjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the ground of the knowledge of the 90km of the Sinju-gun, in the face of the Yju-gun, from which he was negligent in failing to properly conduct the front-down city at the 90km of the Sinju-gun-gun, and caused the death of the deceased on the face of the front-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle by shocking the deceased on the front-hand part of the front-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle.
(A) No. 3, and the above accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiff is the father of the Deceased, and the mother of the Deceased, the Plaintiff C is the deceased’s punishment (Evidence A 4), and the Defendants are the couple.
The Defendants asserted that, even if the instant accident occurred at a speed of 80km due to the absence of street lamps, it can be confirmed by the beam light only 10 meters per headlights, and that the instant accident did not occur due to Defendant D’s negligence in performing his duty at front of 2-3 meters prior to the Defendant’s vehicle.
However, if, at the time of the instant accident, the visibility is more than 10 meters per hour within a limited speed of 70 to 80 km, the Defendant D, regardless of the restricted speed, should have taken measures such as reducing the speed to the extent that it can immediately stop operation and stop within 10 meters as soon as he/she finds obstacles, if the visibility is only 10 meters [the evidence No. 7 of this case, and the Defendant D, to the extent that it is difficult to find where the Deceased was used by the police after the instant accident, to the extent that it is difficult to find where the Deceased arrives at the police after the accident];
(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do2589 delivered on December 26, 1990). Nevertheless, at the time of the instant accident, Defendant D proceeded at a speed of 80km (Evidence A 10-2) speed exceeding that of Si speed of 86.9~90.2km.
(A) No. 10 No. 18), and the victim 2-3 meters from the frontline of the defendant vehicle.