beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 261,818,186 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 13, 2012 to March 22, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On October 13, 2012, B: (a) around 02:20 on October 13, 2012, 2012, C cab (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at the front intersection of the Godong-dong, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Central University.
) While driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her two-lanes on the right side of the sublim University from the back of the sublim University, it was naturally stopped by the Marind Plaintiff, who had been crossing the said intersection to the right side of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle in the direction of running the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, he/she should naturally stop, despite the fact that he/she was in a direct position to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as he/she was fluding the Plaintiff into the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Defendant entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle and entered into a mutual aid agreement. The approximate background of the instant accident is shown in the attached Form No. 2(2)(2).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap 8, 11 evidence, Eul 2 and 3 evidence, or the purport of the whole pleadings
B. If this is the recognition and limitation of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
However, according to the above acknowledged evidence, the time when the accident in this case occurred, and the accident in this case was installed with a pedestrian signal in the vicinity of the front section of the front section of the place and the rear section. However, the plaintiff was crossing the accident in the state where the above pedestrian signal was a green (ongoing signal) and the above pedestrian signal was a red signal and was caused by the accident in this case, and the driver of the defendant vehicle could have relatively difficult to predict the above signal because the pedestrian signal in the vicinity of the accident place was red signal at the time of the accident.