beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 45,184,97 and its related KRW 5% per annum from August 7, 2013 to April 3, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C was driven by D Motor Vehicle at around 10:0 a.m. on Aug. 7, 2013 (hereinafter “A”), while driving a D Motor Vehicle at around 10:00 a.m. (hereinafter “A”) and making a left-hand turn at the crosswalk located at the crosswalk 16, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, and received a plaintiff A, who was a seated with a crosswalk without signal lights, as a harming vehicle
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) B.
Plaintiff
A due to the accident in this case, he suffered injury, such as the cutting of the pelpelel, etc.
C. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to a harming vehicle.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 (including evidence with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Since the place where the instant accident occurred is installed at a crosswalk at the front section, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to check whether there is a person who gets a walk by reducing the speed or stopping the surrounding area, and to safely drive the instant accident. C, a driver of a sea-going vehicle, neglected such duty of care as above, caused the instant accident by taking the Plaintiff A, who was a driver of a sea-going vehicle, as a sea-going vehicle, who was a driver of the instant vehicle, by taking the Plaintiff as a sea-going vehicle
Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the household vehicle, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff A and his wife due to the accident of this case.
B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that "the place where the accident in this case occurred is a crosswalk without a three-distance signal, and the vehicle that passed the crossing by paying attention to the vehicle passing through the crossing, and neglected to pass the crosswalk safely, and therefore, it should be considered that the negligence of the plaintiff A should be reflected in calculating the amount of damages, since the vehicle has a duty of care to safely pass the crosswalk, such as crossing."
Gap evidence 2 and 9 (including Serials) respectively.