beta
Text
1. The Defendant: 27,673,255 won to Plaintiff A; 4,00,000 won to Plaintiff B; 1,000,000 won to Plaintiff C; and 1,000 won to Plaintiff D.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 19, 201, Plaintiff A driven a Epoter II cargo vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) on or around 7:30 minutes, and passed from the right edge of the instant high-tech industrial complex at a speed of 61 to 70km from the right edge of the road at a speed of 61-70km from the right edge of the high-tech industrial complex, in the process of driving at a speed of 61 to the right edge of the road (hereinafter “the instant manle”), the Plaintiff’s vehicle faces an accident that conflicts with street lights while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at right edge due to its impact (hereinafter “the instant accident”). In the course of driving the vehicle at a speed of 61-70km from the right edge of the high-tech industrial complex, Plaintiff A was subject to climatic disorder, donation, and climatic clibling, etc. on the part of the left side of the road.
B. The defendant is the management agency of the Mandole of this case.
C. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are the children of Plaintiff A.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry and video of Gap's Nos. 1, 7 through 10, and 19 (including paper numbers), and the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the head of the relevant school of the Republic of Korea, the head of the relevant hospital of the Republic of Korea and the head of the Chungcheongnam-do University Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The following circumstances that can be recognized by the above recognition of liability for damages, i.e., the Defendant, the managing agency of the Manle of this case, has the duty of care to manage the conditions of Manle periodically so that the Defendant, who is the managing agency of the Manle of this case, may not interfere with the operation of the vehicle due to the heat.
However, it seems that the defendant did not take measures such as managing the status of the manle installed on the road including the Manle of this case on a regular basis, and there is no reason to regard that there is any other cause other than neglecting the installation and management of the Manle of this case including the Manle of this case, and the occurrence of the accident except for the case where the lid of the Manlele of this case is open at the time of the accident.