beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 257,105,901 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 5,000,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from March 24, 2011 to October 2015 to each of them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff A entered into a business registration agreement with “C” from around July 1, 2005, and entered into a transportation business entrustment agreement with C Co., Ltd. with respect to the early five tons of grassland truck and the modern 19 tons truck, and was engaged in transportation business while driving the said truck. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is an insurer under the automobile insurance agreement with D Driving EM5 vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
B. On March 24, 2011, around 18:55, the instant accident D moved the instant car along the three-lanes in front of the entrance of the subway No. 2 in the Southern-dong subway No. 2, Seo-gu, Busan, pursuant to one-lane from the front side of the entrance to the front intersection, while driving the instant car along the three-lanes in front of the exit of the Busan-dong subway No. 2, the front part of the Plaintiff A’s U.S. driving, which was going beyond the median line and going to the left left in the opposite direction, was turned to the front part of the instant car driver’s right side of the instant vehicle, and turned to the Plaintiff A beyond the road floor.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
Plaintiff
In the event of the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as the exposure to the external and cerebral cerebral cerebral dye, pulmonary dye, and cerebral dyecephal
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10, 21, 22 and 23 (including, if any, a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the point of accident of this case has a central line and the vehicle moving has a lot of vehicles, and D has a duty of care to not turn to the left in the opposite direction beyond the central line, despite the fact that D neglected this duty and caused the accident of this case by negligence going to the opposite direction beyond the central line, and therefore, the defendant as the insurer of this case caused damage to the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.