Defendant: (a) KRW 23,692,421, Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively to Plaintiff A; and (b) from March 31, 2018 to March 2020.

Basic Facts

A. On March 31, 2018, F driven a G car (hereinafter referred to as “aggresing vehicle”) and proceeding one lane in front of the I Licensed Real Estate Agent in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H in the direction of K Middle School from J level, and the Plaintiff’s N-tobresing in the direction of M apartment at the L apartment room in the direction of M apartment room (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as minculatory aggregates, including minculatory booms, to the right side of the instant accident.

C. Plaintiff A received temporary layoff benefits (from March 31, 2018 to September 30, 2018) from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (from March 31, 2018 to September 30, 2018) KRW 11,023,920, disability benefits12,83,320.

C. Plaintiff B’s wife, Plaintiff C, and D are children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is an insurance company of Lives Vehicle.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the head of the O hospital of this court, the order of submission of documents by the Seoul Southern Vice-Governor of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the defendant is a insurance company of a sea-going vehicle, and pursuant to Article 10 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident

Plaintiff

In light of the fact that the rate of negligence between the Ortoba and the Oral Sea Vehicles enters the same width without signal apparatus at the same time, the Plaintiff A, who entered the right road pursuant to Article 26(3) of the Road Traffic Act, has a preferential right to the right road; the risk of damage is relatively low compared to the Oral Sea Vehicles; on the other hand, even if the signal is high prior to the accident and the signal is changed, it is difficult to rapidly stop; and Plaintiff Otoba also has a duty of care to comply with the slowly or temporarily stop prior to entry to the intersection pursuant to Article 31 of the Road Traffic Act.