beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The grounds for this part of the court’s liability for damages are stated are as follows: one of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Inasmuch as the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of comparative negligence is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in Chapters 5 through 3, 4), it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The defendant asserts to the effect that "the plaintiff should pass along the edge of a road or the edge of a road, which is deemed to be a motor vehicle or horse at the time of accident, since the location of the accident is not divided into a sidewalk and a roadway, there is negligence that the plaintiff passed to a roadway other than the above place. Such negligence of the plaintiff must be reflected more than 30% in calculating
In light of the following statements made by C, the Plaintiff’s location immediately after the accident, and the police investigation, which can be recognized by evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), evidence Nos. 2, and evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 of evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 7, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff passed the edge of the road to a roadway, other than the edge of the road, and there
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
① During the police investigation conducted on the date of the occurrence of the instant case, C stated, “I sent a traffic accident under which the Plaintiff coming from the edge of a road toward internal waters at the level of capital (a.e., double) is shocking the Plaintiff’s left side bridge, etc. by shocking it against the fronter of the vehicle.”
(2) A road in which the case occurred is not divided into a roadway and a sidewalk, and if a proceeding vehicle fails to observe a roadway, the vehicle is likely to intrude the edge of the road beyond the divided line between the roadway and the sidewalk.
③ According to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff shocked the Plaintiff at the center of the front winger of the Aggresponding vehicle. Nevertheless, immediately after the accident, the Plaintiff is facing the edge of the road.