beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On July 9, 2011, B: (a) around 14:55, 201, the ground for recognition of liability 1) Company B: (a) driven a hurburged vehicle C (hereinafter “instant hurg vehicle”); (b) proceeded from the Daegu bank to the Gwangju bank at a point of 88 Highway 130.4 km located in the same hurgian hurg; and (c) while driving the instant hurg Sturg gal vehicle (hereinafter “durg vehicle”) operated by D with the Plaintiff on the opposite line while driving the instant hurg hurg hurg vehicle at the front part of the instant hurg hurg lurg lurg lurg (hereinafter “the instant hurg lurg lurg lurg lurg lurg lurg lurg lurg lurg
(B) The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the instant Maritime Vehicle as an insured vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the instant Maritime Vehicle as an insured vehicle. [In the absence of dispute, evidence Nos. 2, 3, 1 and 2 (including, if any, numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
(2) According to the above facts and the purport of the entire argument, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant sea vehicles.
B. The defendant's defense of comparative negligence occurred in the accident of this case where Eul violated the central line, but D, the driver of the vehicle affected by this case, could have observed or observed the central line in advance, and since the plaintiff did not wear the safety belt, the plaintiff's negligence also caused the occurrence of the accident of this case. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence 1-3, 4, and 9, it is moving back to the direction of the Gap self-devision due to the reasons for which the causes cannot be known.