beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 270,225,448 as well as 5% per annum from October 8, 2010 to August 16, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. At around 02:48 on October 8, 2010, the Plaintiff was at the left-hand turn to the left-hand turn of the B-wheeled vehicle in the hives of the Ji-ri-ri-ri-ri-dong Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Young-si, the Plaintiff was at the time, using the said intersection as the front-hander of C-Fed vehicle, which was in violation of the suspension direction-setting signal from the hives of T-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri, to the front-hander of C-Fed vehicle that passed the stop direction-setting
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered serious injury, such as the two sides and the inner bottom, the inner bottom, the right-to-hand fluor, the ground-to-hand fluor, the upper right-to-hand fluor, the ground-to-side fluor, the upper-hand fluor, the upper-hand fluor, the upper-hand fluor, and the upper-hand fluor.
The defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with the above cargo vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is the insurer of the above cargo vehicle, and is liable for damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.
(2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant's vehicle was negligent for the plaintiff to go through the intersection as it was due to the shock of the plaintiff's right-hand turn to the left, although the defendant's vehicle found that the moving signal to the right-hand turn at the intersection was changed to the Gap's right-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-out, but the plaintiff was under normal progress in accordance with the new code, and the fact that the defendant's vehicle violated the signal was in a normal progress in accordance with the previous code, as seen earlier. Thus, the defendant's argument does not accept the defendant's claim, and there is no other circumstance to limit the defendant's liability, and therefore it does not seem that the defendant'