beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,396,495,002 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from October 2, 2016 to January 15, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a DNA vehicle under the influence of alcohol on October 2, 2016 at around 07:02, and around 07:126% of alcohol content (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
2) On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle driving and turn to the left at the parallel of 1st two lanes from the front west of the front west-gun of the Republic of Korea to the front west-do in the front west-gun of the Republic of Korea. On the other hand, the Defendant did not find a f string or other taxi of the E-driving, who entered the intersection and left to the left at the left left as they were, without disregarding the stop signal, and did not discover the string or other taxi, and did not look at the left part of the Defendant’s left part of the said string of the said string or other taxi, with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and was accompanied by the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the Defendant’s vehicle, with the string of the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.
C. The limitation of liability: (a) at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was in the state of being locked in the Defendant’s vehicle by drinking alcohol with C along with C; and (b) thereafter, a large number of drinking alcohols than the Plaintiff was caused by the instant accident after driving the Defendant vehicle; (c) under the circumstances where the Plaintiff could recognize that C is likely to drive the Defendant vehicle in drinking condition, he/she was in charge of his/her safety to C, etc.; and (d) did not exercise due diligence for safety, such as selling the safety level after the date of the instant accident (in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was in possession of the Defendant vehicle, it seems reasonable that the Plaintiff could have been aware of it in the course of driving the Defendant vehicle).