beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s KRW 7,066,050 and its relation thereto to the Plaintiff from November 29, 2006 to November 201, 2014.
Reasons
1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 12 (including the branch numbers in which the serial numbers are attached):
B around 12:04 on June 19, 2006, when driving a road to C (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff’s vehicle) on the Dong-dong, instead of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and driving from the ebbane bank to the opposite side of the road, the Defendant’s non-registered son of the Defendant’s driving driving driving, who opened the road of this case to the right side from the alley-dong bank, was shocked to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and suffered injury, such as a combination of 16th right-hand chills on the upper side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). B.
Until November 28, 2006, the Plaintiff, as an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s automobile, paid totaling KRW 17,665,140 as insurance money.
2. In full view of the reasoning of the arguments in the above evidence, the instant road is located at a one-lane road in the crosswalk and the two-way length, and the driver of the instant road has a duty of care to drive slowly, and the driver who intends to enter the instant road from the alley to the instant road has a duty of care to verify whether the instant road has a vehicle to drive slowly, and there is a duty of care to enter the instant road. In light of the following, the instant accident was caused by the competition between the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, who violated the duty of full-time watch and safety driving, and the duty of care to enter the instant road.
Therefore, in light of the background of the accident in this case and the parts and form of the collision of each vehicle, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence between the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant concerning the accident in this case is 60:40.
Therefore, the defendant pays the amount of damages due to the accident of this case to D.