beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 25,000,000 and KRW 18,00,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: B around 17:20 on October 2, 2008, C Coin car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) A collision between the plaintiff's driver's D, who operated directly from the side of the second heating plant to the side of the raw material at the port while the traffic control was not made by signal apparatus in front of the port of the port of the Nam-gu Scco factory in the south-gu, East-gu, Sccoin at the port of the port of the port of the port of the port of the port of the port (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").
Attached Form
2) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the defendant vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. 1) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the Defendant, and is liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident. 2) Since the Plaintiff was negligent in neglecting his/her duty on the front side, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% by taking account of the foregoing.
In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited considering the fact that the plaintiff did not wear safety caps.
Although the evidence No. 2-3 stated “Safety Mono. 3”, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff failed to wear the safety Mono at the time of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff failed to wear the safety Mono at the time of the instant accident.
Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's negligence should also be reflected in limiting the defendant's liability because the accident of this case occurred while passing through a two-lane, although the plaintiff should pass through a three-lane pursuant to Article 16 (1) and attached Table 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.
However, there are exceptional cases where it is possible to pass through lanes other than those designated in the above Enforcement Rule.