beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,521,558 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 10, 2016 to August 9, 2017.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) On March 10, 2016, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle from B A-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-
) A driver had driven a vehicle and driven a two-lane 3-lane 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: (a) the receipt of the vehicle at the south-gu, East-gu, East-do; (b) Med C is a D truck (hereinafter “Defendant”).
A) A driving company and continued the three-lanes on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff discovered that a standing signboard has been installed on the front side of the three-lane road to reduce the speed of road works and block the road, and changed the two-lanes. While the Plaintiff attempted to change the lanes into a sudden brake and a first-lane to avoid drilling with the Defendant’s vehicle in the career change, the Plaintiff was in the middle separation zone, and the Plaintiff was in the end, resulting in the Plaintiff’s accident that caused the Plaintiff’s boom, etc. on the front side of the congested (hereinafter “instant accident”).
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. The approximate background of the instant accident is as shown in the summary map at the scene of the accident.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
C. As to the limitation of liability, the Defendant: (i) the Defendant’s vehicle changed the course to two lanes along the indication that the vehicle would change one of the two-lanes of road works; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle would not change the lanes rapidly; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle would be forced by speed of 136 kilometers per hour at the location of the instant accident where the speed limit is 100 kilometers per hour, while dealing with the steering gear at a speed of 136 kilometers per hour, and thus, (i) and (ii) the instant accident should be considered solely by the Plaintiff.