beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the appeal against the plaintiff A in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly liable for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
B. Meanwhile, the Defendants asserted that the negligence of the deceased crossing the crosswalk should be considered more than 30% without properly examining the surrounding areas in the situation where the green light of pedestrian signals, etc. is on-and-off even though pedestrian signals, etc. should not commence crossing if pedestrian signal, etc. begins in the condition of green deterioration.
However, in light of the circumstances such as whether the pedestrian signal starts to cross before the on-and-off signal of the pedestrian signal, all pedestrians passing the crosswalks are subject to the duty to protect pedestrians in the crosswalks, while the green light of the pedestrian signal, etc. is on-and-off. The accident in this case occurred while the green light of the pedestrian signal, etc. is still on-and-off. The accident in this case occurred while the bus is on-way, and the deceased did not have been involved in the accident while crossing the road to the left side, and the accident occurred while crossing the road at a distance equivalent to the right side from the left side, the deceased started crossing the situation where the green light of the pedestrian signal, etc. is on-and-off.
Even if it is difficult to ask for negligence in the accident of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the deceased's negligence, the above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.
3. Scope of liability for damages
(a) Medical expenses: 653,153 won (based on recognition) paid by the plaintiff A is not disputed, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
B. Funeral expenses, etc.: 5 million won paid by the Plaintiff A shall be 9,626,00 won for funeral expenses of the Deceased.