beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 69,762,34; (b) KRW 16,267,686; and (c) KRW 16,267,686; and each of them, from January 30, 201 to January 201.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) The status of the parties A is as follows: (a) The Plaintiff A at the time of the occurrence of a traffic accident as follows: (b) the Cranchis vehicle (hereinafter “victim”)
Plaintiff B is a person who has been driving, and Plaintiff B is a person who has been on board the damaged vehicle. The Defendant is a person who has caused a traffic accident by: D and Eone Star passenger car he/she has driven (hereinafter referred to as “dive vehicle”).
(2) On January 30, 201, D, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.118%, operated a melting vehicle on January 30, 201, while driving the melting vehicle and driving it on the side of the racing side from the Bull Busan located on the 58.8km located on the nive line Busan located on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line, and changed the two-lane to avoid the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line on the nive line.
C) Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as escape, etc., after being placed in need of 10 weeks of medical treatment due to shock with a harming vehicle, and Plaintiff B suffered bodily injury, such as electric dynasium which requires six weeks of medical treatment. [In the absence of dispute over grounds for recognition, Plaintiff A’s written evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 5-1, 5-4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. According to the facts found above, the traffic accident of this case was caused by the negligence of D as it occurred while the plaintiff A, who driven the damaged vehicle, was under the influence of alcohol while driving on the expressway.
Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the sea vehicle, is the traffic accident of this case.