beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 369,462,531 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 15, 201 to July 16, 201, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) B is the basis for the responsibility of the Defendant’s vehicle at around 18:40 on November 15, 201 (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).
2) While driving the sidewalk and driving it to turn to the left at the Nadri-do 341-3 Hacheon-si, Sucheon-gu, Sucheon-si, Gocheon-si, and driving it to enter into a high-speed apartment, it is necessary to temporarily stop immediately before crossing the sidewalk and temporarily stop the left and the right part before crossing the sidewalk, and not obstruct pedestrians' passage. However, due to the negligence of neglecting this, the Plaintiff, who was walking the light apartment at the Nadri-ri distance from the surface of the high-speed market, left the front part of the Defendant's vehicle's operation, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant's operation and caused the Plaintiff to suffer from the injury of the Defendant's upper part of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half, both sides, half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half of the upper half, both sides, half of the upper half of the upper half of the water, and half of the water.
(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.
B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
C. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident is a road without distinction between delivery and vehicular road, and that it is easy for the Plaintiff to find out vehicles entering the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the Plaintiff’s negligence should be taken into account more than 30%.
The defendant's assertion that the accident site of this case is without distinction between delivery and vehicular road is not accepted, since the accident site of this case is a sidewalk for pedestrians' walking.
However, the location of the accident in this case enters the compact apartment from the roadway to the light light apartment.