beta
Text
1. The defendant's 21,60,000 won and 12,000,000 won and 12,000,000 won and 12,000 won for the plaintiff (appointed party) and Appointed C respectively.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) D D D D D D dump trucks around 11:40 on February 17, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
The G gas station located in the G gas station in the Daegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, was driven by the driver of the vehicle in the direction of 60 km along the two-lanes from the front side of the mountain slope. Since a sidewalk is installed on the side of the above road, the driver of the vehicle has a duty of care to look at whether there is a person driving the road well on the side of the road, and to prevent the accident in advance by accurately manipulating the steering direction and the brake devices. Nevertheless, as a result of negligence of neglecting this, D did not find any H crossing the bicycle from the right side to the left side and let the bicycle of the Defendant vehicle in the front side of the road go beyond the ground, and caused the death of the vehicle in this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).
2) The Appointer B is the deceased’s wife, and the Plaintiff and the Appointer C are the children of the deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1 to 7, Eul evidence 1-1 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the deceased and their bereaved family members as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.
C. The limitation of liability is limited, however, that the deceased was at the crosswalk near 300 meters prior to the point of the accident, and the victim was at the fault of crossinging the four-lane road along the bicycle without permission, and such negligence seems to have contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage. Therefore, the defendant's responsibility is 40%.