beta
Text
1. The defendant shall grant the plaintiff A KRW 43,22,439, the plaintiff B, C, D, and E each of the above amounts of KRW 200,00 and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. (1) A, while driving a G car on April 20, 2009 (hereinafter “accident”) around October 10, 2009, F had the Plaintiff A, who was taking the front of the vehicle due to the vehicle’s body while driving in the vicinity of the Gyeong Highway located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, suffered an injury, such as climatic salt, etc.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the child of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D and E are the parents of Plaintiff A.
(3) The Defendant is an insurer of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the accident vehicle.
(4) According to the above facts, the defendant is the insurer of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract for the accident vehicle, and is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on limitation of liability, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff A did not wear a safety belt and that the damage caused by the instant accident was expanded, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.
Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff A was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to urge the F to ensure safe operation as the pilot of the vehicle involved in the accident of this case, and thus, the driver is remarkably sckless in driving for the mere passenger of the vehicle.
Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the beneficiary could be aware that the risk of the accident is considerably likely to a considerable degree, the driver cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to urge safe operation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da48675, Oct. 12, 2001). Thus, the plaintiff who is a partner cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to urge safe operation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is also rejected.