beta
Text
1.(a)
Plaintiff
A, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant D, respectively, KRW 7,713,687, and each of the said amounts on November 4, 2017.
Reasons
1. Establishment of liability for damages;
A. In fact, Plaintiff B, at around 00:40 on May 13, 2016, referred to as “a 1 damaged vehicle” owned by the said Plaintiff, for the purpose of repairing between the accelerated lanes connected to the entrance of the rest area of an expressway located at a point of 230.5km in the central tower of the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the central tower, and the side side on the right side of the expressway at a point of 230.5km.
B stopped, and at the request of the above plaintiff A, it is called ‘the 2 damaged vehicle' below the G towing Vehicle operated by the plaintiff A.
In this regard, the above 1-victimd vehicle was working in front of the above 1-victimd vehicle.
At this time, H is called I 4.5t Truck hereinafter referred to as "Aquatic Vehicle".
B: (a) while driving a two-lane on an expressway at the above point, the Plaintiffs failed to operate the steering gear due to loaded vehicles; (b) led the back part of the above 1 damaged vehicle, which was towing in a parked space; and (c) the 2 damaged vehicle was shocked by the shock of the 1 damaged vehicle.
This accident is called ‘the accident of this case'.
2) On the other hand, H died at the scene of the instant accident due to the fire attached to the instant vehicle immediately after the said drilling. The Plaintiffs suffered damages from the destruction of the 1 and 2 damaged vehicle due to the instant accident. Defendant C is the spouse of the network H, and Defendant D and E are the children of the said deceased. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments No. 12 of evidence Nos. 1 and 9, respectively.
B. According to the facts of recognition of 1 responsibility, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was caused by a violation of the duty to safely drive by accurately manipulating the steering room and the steering gear and the steering gear. This is a violation of the ordinary duty of care required for the driver of the motor vehicle.
Therefore, the defendants who inherited H are the plaintiffs.