beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 90,012,932 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 10, 2015 to May 26, 2017.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Facts of recognition 1) Nonparty B: (a) around 08:30 on October 10, 2015, Nonparty C (27 tons of cargo vehicles; hereinafter “Defendant”)
(ii)D, while driving in Pyeongtaek-si and driving along a three-laned 361km of the border road at the parallel 361km ( upstream), is underway in the direction of AnsanIC in the euJC, while driving in the direction of Ansan-si, and is driving in the E Scti vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) in which the plaintiff is accompanied by the plaintiff;
A) A vehicle driver who did not discover the U.S. and tried to change the course into a four-lane, and the driver of the damaged vehicle: (a) operated the hand on the right side to avoid the Defendant vehicle; (b) operated the hand on the right side; and (c) operated the hand on the left side. As above, in the process where the Defendant vehicle changed the lane and the damaged vehicle avoided it, the front left side of the damaged vehicle as a whole on the right side of the Defendant vehicle; and (d) again, the part after loading the right side of the damaged vehicle to the left side of the damaged vehicle was shocked by the front side of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).
2) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as eromatic damage (erogens 1-2) due to the instant accident.
3) The defendant is a freight mutual-aid business operator using the defendant vehicle as a deducted vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The defendant has no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 10 evidence (which has a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.
C. In light of the Plaintiff’s injury parts, etc., the Defendant appears to have failed to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s negligence was a significant cause for the occurrence and expansion of the damages caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s liability should be limited. However, the Plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time.