beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 268,056,085 as well as 5% per annum from April 14, 2012 to April 18, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) B are the following victims of traffic accidents, and the Plaintiff is the mother of B and the sole heir.
The defendant is an insurance company which has entered into an insurance contract with the content that the defendant compensates for all the liability to be borne by C due to the automobile accident caused by the operation of the D vehicle owned by C and C.
(2) On April 14, 2012, C driving a D vehicle on April 21:17, 2012, and making the turn to the left at a speed of about 30 km from the right edge of the World Cup stadium distance to the right edge of the Pungsaeng-dong, Seo-gu, Gwangju to turn to the left at a speed of about 30 km from the right edge of the Pungsang-dong.
At the time, there is an intersection where signal, etc. is installed at night and at the front, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle by reducing speed and taking a well-being signal.
Nevertheless, while under the influence of alcohol and the signal is changed to a stop signal, C left-hand turn in violation of the signal, C left-hand turn was parked without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim, even though the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the Eststyna Chapter, driven by B going to the intersection in accordance with the new subparagraph, and stopped on the front part of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the driver in front of the vehicle driving by C.
Ultimately, C caused the death of B by occupational negligence above.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, 15, Eul 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by B and the plaintiff due to the instant accident as an insurer who entered into a contract with C.
C. As to the Defendant’s assertion on limitation of liability, the Defendant was negligent in failing to wear the safety level at the time of the instant accident, and such negligence as that of B is also seen.