beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,241,130 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 1, 2017 to October 12, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On June 1, 2017, C: (a) around 14:30, June 1, 2017, C is a DNA car II (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).
) During the start from a stop before the crossing in front of the Defendant’s front side in order to make a right-hand way to the H Hospital from the direction of the G intersection, the Plaintiff, who walked the said crosswalk to the port from the right-hand side of the Defendant’s driving direction, was shocked with the front-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).
2) The Plaintiff sustained an injury, such as the alleys, due to the instant traffic accident.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a liability insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a liability insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12 through 16 (if there is any number, including number;
each entry or video, the whole purport of the pleading;
B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident within the limit of liability insurance as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, as the liability insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle sustained an injury.
C. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff, who was crossing a crosswalk without signal, was negligent by failing to perform his/her duty of care as a pedestrian, but as seen earlier, the instant accident had already started in the presence of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the crosswalk, and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was trying to make a right-hand way by departing from the crosswalk, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was any negligence in walking the crosswalk to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant's liability limitation assertion is accepted.