beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 216,370,579, KRW 141,180,386, and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff B, C, and D, respectively.
Reasons
Basic Facts
E, around 22:25 on May 16, 2015, driving a Ftoscar car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeding one-lane of the four-lanes near the Daejeon Seosung-gu G apartment 108 bus stops and adjacent signals, etc., adjacent to the bus stops in front of Daejeon-gu Daejeon, toward the open calculation from the edge of the river, while neglecting the front-way city, and led the network H (hereinafter “the network”) crossing the said road to the left-hand side from the direction of the proceeding of E by neglecting the front-way.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident location was a point where the temporary suspension line in front of the crosswalk was less than a little, and the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle was about 93km/h in the event of the accident exceeding 33 km/h.
In the accident of this case, the Deceased was sent to the first-aid vehicle hospital, but died.
Plaintiff
A is the deceased's spouse, and the plaintiff B, C, and D are the deceased's children, and the defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant's vehicle.
[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the fact that the defendant is liable for damages arising from the overall purport of the pleading, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
However, at the time of limitation of liability, the point at which the instant accident occurred is night, the point at which the instant accident occurred is set at seven-lanes, and the signal, etc. does not work, and thus, the Deceased is negligent in crossing the vehicle to a place other than the crosswalk while neglecting his/her duty of care to cross the crosswalk, even though he/she had a duty of care to cross the crosswalk. Such errors by the Deceased were caused by the occurrence and expansion of the instant damage. Accordingly, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 70% by reflecting them.
. Liability for damages.